it opens up significant portions of the outer continental shelf. right now the entire east coast and west coast and much of the gulf of mexico are completely off-limits. for the most parkts the only offshore development allowed is the western portion of the gulf and in certain areas offshore alaska. but you have to keep in, to do this you have to get the permits, and that is where they have dragged their feet. my amendment would require the rest of the o.c.s. to be leased over time. according to a recent study, these areas have at least 63 billions barrels of recoverable oil and up to 160 treul cubic -- trillion cubic feet of natural gas. once brought fully on line, this will create tens of thousands of new jobs and ultimately bring an additional $1.4 trillion in additional tax revenue for the government. my amendment would also require the administration to move forward with three lease-sales

that were conducted by the bush administration but were subsequently pulled by the obama administration after taking office. additionally, my amendment allows anwr on the northern slope of alaska to be developed. experts believe this area contains 16.4 billion barrels of oil and 18.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. i've been up there, and people are talking about anwr and all this, this beautiful area. they have systems now where you can't even tell where they're developing it. the people of alaska, i've seen polls ranging from 70% to 85%, and i can actually identify these polls, the people in alaska, they want to do it. i mean, why are we in our infinite wisdom here in washington, d.c. to tell them up in alaska that they can't go after their own oil and gas? i think it's ludicrous. anyway, this amendment will correct that situation.

my amendment removes also the statutory moratorium on the development of this resource and requires the secretary of interior to begin an oil and gas leasing program in the area. today oil shale, particularly that in western states, represents some of our greatest energy potential. just a few years ago, we didn't know this. we didn't have any idea of the size this have. exerts believe the western states hold as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil shale of which 800 billion barrels is presently recoverable. this is simply an astonishing amount of oil, and it would do a lot to help us lower the price at the pump. that's what we're talking about. everything we have talked about on the floor in opposition to the menendez bill is something that is going to lower prices of gasoline at the pumps. my bill forces the administration to release ten research and development leases that were approved by the bush

administration, then canceled by the obama administration. thereafter the obama administration would be forced to conduct additional oil shale leases on federal lands. we have right now in our federal lands 93% of the federal lands are off limits, and that needs to be corrected. lastly, my bill reserves the right to regulate hydraulic fracturing to the states. you know, i know a little bit about this because the first hydraulic fracturing that took place in this country was in my state of oklahoma. that was 1949. since 1949, there has not been one documented case of ground water contamination, and it's worked beautifully. and i think most people agree now that it's better regulated by the states. the states differ in the depth of their resources, what they have to do to achieve it and its worth. there's an old saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it. but you have to look behind the real motive of the federal

government, this administration. if they can stop hydraulic fracturing, they can stop the production of oil and gas. and i believe that is their motivation. it's a safe process. it's been successfully regulated by the states. and in the 60 years there has not been one documented case of contamination. because states have done such a good job at regulating fracking, i think they ought to continue having that exclusive right. my bill does this. it kind of takes away this temptation of the power grab by the federal government to regulate this thing that doesn't need to be regulated at the federal level, particularly when their motivation is to do away with hydraulic fracturing. you do away with hydraulic fracturing, and you talk about when you're trying to go after the tight formations, you can't extract one cubic foot of natural gas without using hydraulic fracturing. that's what the bill does; a big win for energy production because we all know the administration regulations would

likely prevent anyone from ever using hydraulic fracturing again. i can remember when the president was giving his speech, the last speech to the nation, the joint session, and he was talking about all of a sudden people had caught on to the fact that he's had this war on fossil fuels. so he started saying nice, complimentary things about good, clean natural gas. i agree with everything he said. what we didn't hear him say, because he said it very fast and toward the end of his remarks, we have to do something about hydraulic fracturing. if you kill hydraulic fracturing, you can't get any of that natural gas we're talking about. all told, by tapping into our, all of our domestic sphraoeuf oil and gas, we could -- supply of oil and gas, we could increase our economic output by trillions of dollars over the next several decades. it would create hundreds and thousands of new well-paying jobs. we have the energy resources we need. and if we develop them, it will significantly improve our economy and there again lower

the price at the pumps. by raising the taxes as the menendez bill would do would only make the problem worse. i would urge the adoption of that amendment. the next one i have introduced is the gas regulations act of 2012, to hold the obama administration accountable for their role in gas prices. i'm also introducing the gas regulation act of 2012 as an amendment. we actually had this. we were going to try to introduce this as a bill. this commonsense amendment would require an interagency committee to conduct a cumulative analysis of uncertain -- on certain of the e.p.a. rules and action that is impact the price of gasoline and diesel fuels. my amendment is a companion amendment to a bill introduced last week by house energy and power subcommittee chairman ed whitfield. this amendment will help us to obtain a better understanding of the cost of all these levels of

regulations. i've often talked about the regulations and what the cost is, but it's kind of masqueraded. let me just read to you the cost of these regulations that this administration is accountable for and that directly relate to the increased price of gas tufrpbls. tier -- at the pumps. tier 3, who's going to pay for it? you're going to pay for it. new source peformance standards for petroleum refiners could result in billions of additional environmental and compliance costs. again, that's going to be passed on to the ultimate consumer. the r.f.s., renewable fuel standard, would force the americans to consume 21 billion gallons of expensive biofuels like the one that the navy procured for $26 a gallon last year instead of paying $3.50 a gallon that they normally pay

for fuel. ozone standards result in a $676.8 billion loss in g.d.p. again, these standards increase directly the price of gas at the pumps. greenhouse gas p.s.d., this is in the title 5 permitting actions. again, another regulation. this regulation slows down the permitting process and would prevent upgrading refining capacity from coming on line quickly. again, this is what causes the increase of the gas price. it's the regulations. people know pretty much the supply and demand argument, but they don't know what these regulations do. anyway, this bill is designed -- this amendment, 1963, is designed to do that. the next one i've introduced, the last one i'll talk about, is the amendment number 1967. this is kind of -- called the

inhofe-upton energy tax prevention act. fred upton, a congressman over there, has actually passed this. i've introduced this now. for three years we've been trying to get it passed, and just yesterday we found out that president obama fully intends to make good on his campaign promise to under his plan of cap and trade system electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. that's what we're talking about with this amendment. cap and trade, a lot of people remember -- i know there are a lot of republicans that were concerned about this issue right after kyoto, and they said let's do something about this, this idea that somehow you're going to have to reduce and regulate greenhouse gases in order to do this, they were introducing cap and trade bills. it goes back to the kyoto convention. back in 1993 when the famous meeting was held -- that al gore went down to to try to put

together. this was rio day gentleman tpher tpher -- rio de janerio. an international convention they called kyoto. we looked at it and saw it was going to cost the american people between $3 billion and $4 billion a year, going to treat developing countries different from developed countries. so we didn't do it. in fact, the interesting thing about the kyoto treaty is that the president, then president clinton, never submitted it for ratification of this body. after that didn't work out, they went ahead and did a second effort to do it through the cap and trade legislation. we beat all the cap and trade regulations. the main reason we did is because it became very evident that the science was cooked. the science was all put together by the united nations. it started way back in 1992. they developed a thing called

the ipcc. the ipcc is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. it was designed in order to, i believe, cook the science to make people believe that you're going to have to do something and that co2 and anthropogenic gases were causing catastrophic global warming. we know what's happening since that time. we note what happened about climategate, the fact that they showed they did cook the science. and consequently, we introduced this legislation. this legislation merely does one thing. the legislation will take away the jurisdiction, from the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases. my concern is this, yes, we were able to stop all of these bills from passing that would have been posed, a tax increase on the american people. to give you an idea of how much $300 billion to $400 billion would mean, in my state of oklahoma i keep track of the number of families that file tax

returns. then i do the math. if you do the math with what it would cost for cap and trade through the legislation that they are talking about passing that we defeated quite handily on the floor of the senate, it would cost each taxpayer in my state of oklahoma over $3,000 a year. what would you get for it? this is the interesting thing. even those people out there who think that i'm way off base and that i'm wrong and that in terms of co2 and anthropogenic gases, you've got to keep in mind we asked the question to president obama's director of the environmental protection agency, if we were to pass cap and trade, will this reduce co2 emissions worldwide? she said no. logically it would not because this isn't where the problem is. the problem is in china. the problem is in india. in those places is where they would have to be regulated. they don't regulate it to the degree would here. you could carry that one step further. if you pass cap and trade, it would have the effect of

increasing anthropogenic gases worldwide because as our manufacturing base leads the united states of america and seeks energy in those areas where there's less controls, that would have the effect of not reducing, but increasing emissions. so, what we would attempt to do is to take away this jurisdiction. here's the reason we want to do that. it's bad enough, when i talked about $300 billion to $400 billion it would cost to do cap and trade through legislation, if you do it through regulation it's going to be a lot more for this reason. most of the bills that were introduced starting way back in 2003 and ending up with the waxman-markey bill that was a couple of years ago, these were bills that would regulate emitters that emitted over 100,000 tons a year. however, if you do it through regulation, it has to be under the clean air act, and the clean air act specifically says not

those entities that emit 100,000 tons a year, but those who emit 250 tons or more. mr. president, that would be every church, every school, every hospital in america. and so that cost, we can't even approximate what that would cost. and that's what doing cap and trade by regulation would do. so simply put, my third and my last amendment would be to do here what they've already done in the house of representatives, and that is to take away the jurisdiction from the environmental protection agency, directly relates to the price of gas at the pumps. you take these amendments, and if the menendez bill should get through with these three amendments we can totally stop the increase of gas at the pumps because that's what we're going to be faced with if we adopt the

obama-menendez amendment. with that i'll yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? thank you, mr. president. mr. alexander: mr. president, last wednesday i had the privilege, as did many in this body, of attending a tribute to two former majority leaders of the united states senate. howard baker and bob dole. it was a great evening. president clinton sent a video. the vice president attended. the secretary defense, the secretary of health and human services. all the former majority leaders of the united states senate except one. it was a long evening, but it was a good evening. and along with senator baker was former senator nancy kassebaum-baker, his wife. and along with senator dole came senator elizabeth dole, his wyoming so it was -- his wife. so it was a wonderful evening. it was sponsored by the bipartisan policy center. and it was a reminder that while in this body, we have

differences. in fact, this body was created to resolve differences. people sometimes say to me, oh, my goodness, you senators are arguing. that's what we're supposed to do. we're supposed to -- the kick up to us or over to us issues that can't be resolved other places and with respect for each other's points of view, we try to resolve them and we often do. well, bob dole and howard baker were among the best at working across party lines and getting results, and it was for that skill as much for any other skill that they were honored. i would like to ask consent to put in -- i was asked to introduce a short film about senator baker and i did. senator roberts of kansas was asked to introduce a short film about senator dole, and he did. i would like to ask consent to put into the record my remarks about howard baker as i introduced the film. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and, mr. president, senator baker,

recalling the story of his maiden speech, put his remarks -- asked that his remarks be put into the "congressional record". the story was this. , which i told that night. senator baker was here in 1967 and made his maiden speech at a time when his foarnl, -- his father-in-law, everett dirksen, was the republican leader. i was here as howard baker's young assistant right out of law school. and he walked over and sat down next to him after what had been a fairly long speech, maybe 45 minutes. senator baker looked at his father-in-law and said, senator dirksen, how did i do? and senator dirksen said to his son-in-law, senator baker, howard, "maybe occasionally you should enjoy the luxury of an unexpressed thought." so senator baker, recalling that advice, i assume, asked that his remarks to be delivered that

night at the end of a long ceremony be placed in the "congressional record" and i ask consent to do that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to make a few remarks on the subject that we're debating here which is -- which is energy. last week, the majority leader said that he was disappointed that we were not moving to the ex-im bank and to postal reform and to cyber security, all of which he said are urgent national issues that the united states expect our senate to deal with. the republican leader said that on our side, we're ready to deal with all three. and the republican leader offered to join the majority leader in dealing with ex-im bank with a few relevant amendments, which might be a pretty good way to begin our process of getting the senate back to doing what the senate is supposed to do, which is to bring up important pieces of legislation, allow senators on both sides to offer theirhem, ve

on them. it's easier to do if the amendments are relevant to the legislation that's being offered. so we were looking forward this week to dealing with the postal reform bill which needs to be dealt with. we've got a several billion-dollar debt for the post office which has been a part of our lives ever since our country was founded and we have competing pieces of legislation on the issue. very good senators on both sides of the aisle ready to discuss it. yet suddenly the majority leader changed his mind, which he has a right to do, and he instead brought up legislation repealing six tax provisions for five oil companies, provisions that for the most part are tax provisions that are available to most other companies in america. now, why would the majority leader do that? well, in the senate, it's not considered to be good form to inquire into the motivations of

other senators so i won't do it, but i would read a paragraph or two from the "national journal" this week that speculated on what might have happened. and i quote -- "the senate holds a procedural vote this evening evening" -- that was monday -- "on legislation sponsored by senator menendez of new jersey that would repeal tax incentives for the country's biggest oil companies. it won't pass," said the "national journal" "but it will create a platform for democrats try to regain the gas prices. john podesta and jeff gere ne notes that the vote -- quote -- "offers a huge opportunity for progressives to frame energy policy through the gas price debate." "democrats will use the familiar tactics" -- this is the national journal reporting -- "of linking high gas prices to big oil and big oil to republicans with the aim of attacking g.o.p.

presidential candidates and putting three vulnerable democrats up for -- vulnerable republicans up for reelection, in tough spots." that's the end of the speculation from the "national journal." now, maybe that was the reason the majority leader decided to bring this up, but clearly we're spending a whole week on a political exercise. if this is true, it's being brought up to frame an issue, to put republican senators who may be running for reelection in a difficult spot, well, then, republicans must not think so, so we all voted to bring it up. so instead of doing cyber security, instead of doing postal reform, we're spending the entire week on something we all know is not going to pass and it's a misuse of the time of the senate. it would be much better if we were using the time on those other issues. but as long as we're discussing lowering gasoline prices and lowering fuel prices, i have a suggestion to make. here's a plan to lower fuel

prices -- double energy research. and here's a way to pay for it without adding to the federal debt -- stop wasteful long-term subsidies that are exclusively or mostly for both big oil and big wind. now, look at shale gas. the senator from oklahoma was talking about shale gas, which is being produced thanks to move technology found through energy research. this is a remarkable development in our country. but as daniel yergen, the leading expert on energy reports in his new book, "the quest," the innovation on this began over 20 years ago. some of it from the private sector, some of it from government funding. but basically, we found a way to mine natural gas and oil through a process called hydraulic fracking. it's possible all around the world. i was in australia in january. the australians are doing it, selling it to china. the remarkable difference for the united states is not just

that we suddenly have a lot more natural gas but that it is cheap gasoline. instead of being $15 a unit, which it was when we passed the last energy bill in 2005, it's $2 a unit or $3. and more than that, while australians are selling their gas to china and paying the world price at home for their own natural gas, in the united states, it appears likely that we'll be able to buy our gas at a united states price rather than a world price. now, what does -- what does that mean? that means that natural gas in europe and in asia is going to be worth four to five times what natural gas is here. so chemical companies that were thinking about moving overseas five years ago in order to be able to buy cheap natural gas for their feed stock, their raw materials, they're -- they're staying here, expanding here, thinking about moving back. older people who need to heat

and cool their homes can use natural gas at a cheaper price. manufacturing companies who are adding up the costs that make a decision whether they put a plant in mexico or some other place or the united states can put cheap energy in their -- in there with the natural gas. for the foreseeable future, it appears that natural gas in europe and asia is going to be four or five times what it is in the united states, giving us a tremendous advantage. so energy research, both in the government and in the private sector, has given the united states the advantage that, if truth be told, has been our advantage ever since world war ii. the reason we -- the principal reason that we have produced 25% of all the money in the world every year is because of the innovation, technology and research that has come since world war ii. and it's hard to think of an important advance in biological or physical -- physical sciences

without support from -- from government research. so shale gas is one example of that. here's another example. i drive an all-electric nissan leaf and pay about $3 for the electricity to travel a hundred miles, better than spending an equivalent 20 miles on gasoline. now, researchers at battery maker envia have invented a way to double the density of lithium ion batteries, hastening the arrival of $20,000 cars that travel 300 miles per charge. that research is permitting us in the case of shale gas to find more american energy, and in the case of electric batteries, to use less of it. that is why i argue that the united states should launch a series of mini-manhattan projects with the same focus and determination of the original world war ii manhattan project. this time with the goal of finding more energy and finding ways to use less of it.

the united states has a resource no other country has -- dozens of major research universities, 17 national laboratories that can advance research on cheaper solar, better batteries, recapturing carbon from coal plants, biofuels from crops we don't eat, better ways to dispose of used nuclear fuel, offshore wind, green buildings and even fusion. to pay for doubling the $5 billion the united states now spends on energy research, congress should end current tax breaks that are exclusively or mostly for both big oil and big wind. and of every $3 saved, use $1 for more research and $2 to reduce the federal debt. for all we hear about big oil -- and we hear a lot about it -- you may be surprised to learn that special tax breaks for big

wind are even greater. during the five years between 2009 and 2013, federal taxpayer subsidies for wind power developers equaled $14 billion, according to the joint committee on taxation and the u.s. department of treasury. now, here i'm only counting the production tax credits and the cash grants in the 2009 stimulus law offered to wind developers in lieu of the tax credit. an analysis of that stimulus cash grant program, which this legislation that's offered here would extends, found that -- would extend, found that 54% of the highest dollar grants awarded, or about $2.7 billion in subsidies, went to projects that had begun construction before the stimulus measures started. so steve ellis, the vice president of taxpayers for common sense, told green wire -- quote -- "it's essentially funding economic activity that

would have occurred, so it's just a pure subsidy." it sounds like, in the president's budget, that big oil receives multiple tax subsidies that are exclusively for big oil doing away with them, they say, would save about $4.7 billion in the fiscal year next year or about $22 billion to $24 billion over five years. so far it sounds like big oil, with $22 billion is bigger with its subsidies than big wind with only $14 billion, but here's the catch. many of these subsidies that the president is attacking oil companies for having are regular tax provisions that are available to hundreds, even thousands of -- of companies in america. for example, xerox, microsoft, caterpillar all benefit from tax provisions like the manufacturing tax credit. amateurization, depreciation of used equipment that the

president is counting as big oil subsidies. and, of course, wind energy companies also benefit from many of these same provisions but the production tax credit that benefits mostly wind is in addition to the regular tax code provisions that benefit many companies. so the only way to make a fair comparison is to look at subsidies that mostly benefit only oil or mostly benefit only wind and by that measure big wind gets more tax breaks than big oil. so the big proposed by the senator from new jersey that is limited to just five big oil companies is limited to them even though many of the tax breaks or tax credits or deductions they receive are the same tax credits that many other companies receive. and then this bill also extends -- extends -- many tax breaks, including the wind production tax credit and the 1603 grant program for renewable

energy, which mostly benefits wind. now, two weeks ago during the debate on the transportation bill, this senate wisely refused to extend the 20-year-old temporary production tax credit which mostly benefits wind. that was the correct decision. we should allow this tax provision to expire. congress made a much more difficult decision last year to allow the ethanol tax credit to expire, and we should hold our ground and do the same thing for the wind production tax credit. there are three reasons why. big wind subsidies should go the way of the $5 billion annual ethanol subsidy. first we can't afford it. the federal government borrows 40 cents of every dollar we spend. you can't justify such a subsidy, especially for what the u.s. energy secretary calls a mature technology. according to the energy information agency in 2008, big

wind received in subsidies 25 times as much per megawatt hour as all other forms of electricity combined. second, wind turbines produce add relatively puny amount of unreliable, expensive energy. wind produces about 2.3% of all of our electricity. a better alternative is clean, natural gas. an even better alternative is cleaner, nuclear power which nuclear power reactors power our navy and produce 70% of our pollution-free electricity. using windmills to power a country that uses one-fourth of the world's electricity would be the energy equivalent of going to war in sail boats. the tennessee valley authority has erected 18 massive wind turbines on a mountain outside of knoxville.

the turbines have done little. the wind there blows 19% of the time, usually at night when we don't need it, and it' its unusd electricity production cannot be stored. finally, there is the question of whether in the name of saving the environment wind turbines are destroying the environment. these are not your grandma's windmills. they are taller than the statue of liberty. their blades are as long as a football field and their blinking lights can be seen for 20 miles. in nashville, vanderbilt and the metropolitan water system are about to erect a small wind turbine as tall as the parthenon replica we have in nashville. it would take 1 million of these to equal the knotsbar nuclear reactor. it could cost 15 times the cost of the nuclear reactor and you would still need the plant for

when the wind doesn't blow. when t. boone pickens was asked whether he'd put wind turbines on his texas ranches, he answered "no, they're ugly." birds must think of turbines as cuisinarts in the sky. the u.s. department of interior has set up a process to grant lngs for eagle taking, sort of a hunting license. a new documentary "windfall" chronicles the debate of upstate new yorkers debating whether to build turbines in their town. i ask the question, if wind has all these draw backs, is mature technology and receives tub -- receives subsidies, why are we subsidizing it with billions of dollars and why are we not including it in this debate? why are we talking about big oil subsidies and not wig bind subsidies? our energy policy should be

first to double the $5 billion in federal energy -- should be to double the $5 billion energy research budget that we now have and focus it on new forms of cheap, clean, reliable energy. i'm talking about the 500-mile battery for electric cars, commercial uses of carbon captured from coal plants, solar panels installed, or offshore wind turbines that would be researched. second, we should limit a handful of jump-start research and development projects to take it from the r&d stage to the commercial stage. i'm thinking about darpa, that led to the interned and the stealth and other remarkable technologies. or incentives for the first

200,000 electric vehicles purchased in america. these are a strictly limited number of jump-start r&d projects. third, we should end wasteful long-term special tax breaks, such as those for big oil and those for big wind. i'm talking about the tax breaks that are exclusively or mostly for big oil and big wind. and this savings from those subsidies should be used to double clean energy research and to reduce our federal debt. but that is not what this bill does. this bill ends subsidies for five companies that many other companies receive, and it extends subsidies for a few companies that other industries don't get. this debate isn't even about an energy plan, which is what we should be debating when gas is around $4 a gallon right now. here is a very specific plan:

increase energy research, double it. define more american oil and more american natural gas and more american alternative forms of energy. and increase energy research to find ways to use less of that energy. i've highlighted the best ways to use less and i've highlighted a way to pay for it. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: a couple of weeks ago and just now my colleague, the senator from tennessee, has been speaking on the senate floor in opposition to the wind energy production tax credit. obviously i have great respect for senator alexander, a person who's been in the cabinet, a

person who's been goafn of their state, a person who's been president of a university, probably a lot of other important positions. he can't help but be respected for a very important and knowledgeable senator. while i differ with him greatly on this issue, i will continue to respect him. the greatness of this body allows for debate and disagreeing points of view to be heard. i disagree strongly with my colleague, and it might be natural for me to do that because i've championed the wind energy tax credit as a way to provide a level playing field for a very clean, renewable resource. as a result, it has become -- as a result, wind energy has become more efficient and cost-effective. the cost of wind energy has declined by 90% since the 1980's. wind has accounted for 35% of

all new american electric generation in the last five years. wind has already provided 20% of the electric generation in my state of iowa. it supports as many as 5,000 good-paying jobs in our state. as a result of the tax incentive, the wind energy has actually created new manufacturing jobs in the united states. today 60% of the wind turbines' value is now produced in the united states compared with just 25% six years ago. there are now 400 facilities building wind components in 43 states. that is why a bill in the house of representatives to extend the wind energy production tax credit has 80 cosporks including 18 -- has 80 cosponsors, including 18 republicans. if we fail to extend the incentive, thousands of jobs will be lost in wind

manufacturing industry. unemployment remains high at 8.30%. why would congress exacerbate the unimlaimen unemployment in y by failing to extend this successful incentive? the senator from tennessee has criticized wind turbines because he believes they are ugly and kill birds. i happen to find them majestic and awe-inspiring on the landscape. the senator's exclaims were evaluated by a fact-checking ompletion they concluded that the estimates of birds killed by wind turbines vary widely and that there is no consensus. they do point out that the 400,000 bird estimate used by senator alexander is the conclusion of just one person. it is not an official u.s. fish and wildlife estimate. in fact, the u.s. fish and wildlife cites figures that are, at most, half that, if not less

by much. by comparison, 976 million birds die annually from collision with buildings, collisions with high-tension lines kills between 130 million and 1 billion birds. cars kill 80 million birds each year. so the senator from tennessee referred many times to the wind project built in his state by the tennessee valley authority. they constructed a 29 megawatt wind farm at buffalo mountain at cost of $60 million. but it only generates 6 megawatts because it generates electricity only 19% of the time. the senator criticized it as being inofficiate, wasteful, and ill advised. the t.v.a. parntsly characterizes it as a failed experiment. he blames the federal incentive for this failed wind project. the blame is totally misplaced.

i think the blame should go to the taxpayers who subsidized t.v.a. who put windmills where there was very little wind. we do agree that the modification made to renewable energy incentives in the stimulus bill of 2009 -- specifically the creation of the 1603 cash grant program -- is in fact bad policy and should not be extended. however, the production tax credit, which i first authorized in 1992, provides the incentive only for electricity that is actually produced. under the production tax credit, there is no tax benefit simply for placing the turbines in the ground. electricity must be produced in order to get the credit. the senator from tennessee went on to say that the tax incentive has encouraged developers to build wind projects in placings with insufficient wind resources. the t.v.a. project is the only one that i'm aware of that was

built with no prospects of generating electricity. for-profit utilities have to look outer for th out for the b. they are not going to make an inpvestment if it doesn't make -- investment if it doesn't make economic sense. a nonprofit like t.v.a. can just frirt away money, which is what they parntsly did in this project. the senator from tennessee might spend a bit of time criticizing the leaders of the t.v.a. over their poor decision to build this wind project in the first place. i'm not aware of a policy forcing them to develop wind. there is no mandate that they build a wind farm there in the state of tennessee. most intelligent businesses determine whether an investment makes common sense. the t.v.a. obviously failed in that regard in relationship to this wind project. the senator from tennessee might use his time getting to the

bottom of this leadership failure and squandered resources by the tennessee valley authority. i'm also glad that he raised the issue of the tennessee valley authority. much of the criticism aimed at the wind production tax credit is that it's costly, was meant to be temporary, and that it provides just a small benefit at a great cost. those same accusations could clearly be aimed at the t.v.a. regardless of one's opinion of the t.v.a., there is no doubt it is a big government program subsidized by all americans that benefit just a fiewvment the t.v.a. was created in 193 3 to provide flood control, navigation services and electrical power in the tennessee valley region. for more than six years congress appropriated funds to cover losses by the t.v.a. a 2009 article published by jim powell of the cato institute noted that a study estimated the annual cost of capital subsidies

exceeded $1.2 billion, including taxes that the tennessee valley authority was able to avoid. in 1997, the heritage foundation issued a report entitled "five good reasons to force the t.v.a. into mandatory retirement." this report stated, "throughout its history, the t.v.a. has benefited from generous subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory exemptions that allow it to keep its power rates lower than the national averages, yet despite its protective geographic monopoly, substantial indirect subsidies totaling roughly 1.2 billion each year sweeping across the broad regulatory exemptions, the t.v.a. has managed to amass a debt of w well over $27 billion and a disturbing record of waste, mismanagement, and chronic cost overruns."

the private nonprofit group citizens against government waste has suggested selling the t.v.a.'s electric assets and privatizing its nonpower functions. in their 2011 list of prime cuts -- that's a quote, the words "prime cuts is a title." this move would save the taxpayers $6.2 billion over five years. even the congressional budget office listed the t.v.a. in its report on spensdzing and revenue options to reduce the national debt and iewnl deficit. when the federal government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, perhaps the time has come to review an entity that benefits 3% of the population at a cost of over $1.2 billion annually. and i use that 40 cents that the federal government's borrowing of every $1 we spend just like

the senator from tennessee a few minutes ago used that very same figure as a rationale for eliminating certain expenditures. in this particular case, i apply it to the congressional budget office recommendation of selling t.v.a. rather than blaming the tax incentives for an ill-skaoefpd wind project -- ill conceived wind project, a think a review of the subsidy of t.v.a. would be more appropriate. on many occasions the senator from tennessee argued that the incentive should be revealed and the savings used to double the federal energy research budget and to support development of new nuclear. first, i support research efforts to develop clean energy, but i don't support imposing a tax hike on one energy industry so that we can spend billions through our federal bureaucracy. this idea is nothing more than a tax increase to pay for further washington spending. it's this kind of activity that helped create the fiscal mess

that our country is in right now. secondly, i strongly support nuclear energy. in fact, i believe there are four critical elements to a comprehensive energy policy. they are drilling for domestic oil and gas, promoting renewable and alternative energy, supporting conservation, and, of course, fourthly, nuclear energy. nuclear is an emission-free resource. it certainly should play a key role in providing our nation and economy with a reliable emission-free energy. however, this discussion of wind energy versus nuclear energy should be an intellectually honest debate. the fact is nuclear energy in the united states would not exist today -- would not even be here today -- without significant government support over 60 years. and development of new nuclear in the united states is unlikely to happen without even greater government intervention and

subsidies. an analysis done by the christian science monitor concluded that the nuclear power industry in the united states receives about $9 billion annually in subsidies. they state that the subsidies stem from things like federal decommissioning, waste management policy, research and development in the nation's national laboratories. the union of concerned scientists published a document february last year entitled -- quote -- "nuclear power still not viable without subsidies." they contend that the 50-year-old nuclear industry has benefited from 30 subsidies. the price-anderson insurance liability policy was enacted in 1957 as a temporary measure for an infant industry. it was recently extended until the year 2025. the cato institute published an article june 1993 entitled --

quote -- "no corporate warfare for nuclear -- welfare for nuclear power. despite continued government subsidy, including more than $66 billion in research and development alone, no nuclear power plant has been order and built in the united states since 1973." end of quote. but it goes further to quote, "the decline of nuclear power is the result of several factors. the the three mile island disaster heightened public safety fears and citizens' opposition to the siting of plants in their neighborhood grew, but nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it simply does not make economic sense. in truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense, and purely is a creature of

government." a more recent piece by the cato institute cites an economist that believes that existing nuclear power subsidies are equal to one-third or more of the value of the power produced and that they face a negative 49% tax rate. there are only two new nuclear plants on the drawing board in the united states today. both are recipients of loan guarantees provided by the department of energy. one is an $8.3 billion loan guarantee and the other is $2 billion. when the loan guarantee program was first created by congress, the congressional budget office estimated that -- quote -- "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high, well above 50%." now, this is the same program that backed solyndra. congress originally set aside $18.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear. president obama has requested tripling that amount to $54.5

billion. it's estimated that this $54 billion would help construct 12 nuclear plants. that's about $4.5 billion each. congress has created a production tax credit for new nuclear. we created production tax credit for new nuclear in the year 2005. now nuclear industry is advocating a 30% investment tax credit for these new nuclear constructions. they are also advocating that the production tax credit be extended to the year 2025. that's right. they're seeking to extend for another 13 years an extension of a temporary tax incentive. taxpayers for common sense, in an article published just last week, concluded -- quote -- "the united states cannot afford to shoulder the high price tag and long-term fiscal risk. if the industry cannot figure

out a way to manage its long-term risk, the taxpayer should not step in. this is especially true when the nation is staring into a $15 trillion chasm of debt after more than 50 years of subsidy and support, it's well past time for the nuclear industry to stand on its own two feet." i do not raise these points to undermine our nuclear industry. i'm not urging my colleagues to end the entire big nuclear gravy train at this time. i support that form of energy as one component of a comprehensive energy program. i support a real "all of the above" approach to energy security. but a fair comparison to federal support for wind and nuclear needs to be made. and that's the point in my remarks at this time. so i say to the senator from tennessee, as he just spoke and as he spoke a couple of weeks

ago, it's intellectually dishonest to criticize wind incentives while at the same time ignoring those subsidies for nuclear energy. the senator from tennessee referred to a "wall street journal" editorial that criticized the wind energy incentive. it called into question whether wind energy could survive a market-based system. i will eagerly await an editorial in the "wall street journal" which, by the way, will never appear calling forked gravy train for -- calling for the gravy train for big nuclear to end with no market-based timetable on the horizon. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. promise without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous

consent the senate proceed to executive session at 4:30 p.m. today and that all other provisions of the previous consent remain in effect and that the previous order regardinged the division of time on the motion to proceed 2230 be modified to reflect this consent. the two votes originally scheduled for 6:00 p.m. will now begin at 5:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, right outside this chamber, across the street is a huge gathering. it's the third day in succession that people from all across america have gathered before the supreme court. they have different points of view. they express those points of view in various ways: with signs, chants, music, a variety of other costumes that are worn to express their point of view.

let me salute the fact that that is part of part of america and o be protected. we take it for granted. in some parts of the world it is an exception rather than a rule. in america we should celebrate it even when we disagree. let me say a word about what's going on inside the building across the street. they are considering the health care reform bill that was passed by the united states congress and signed by president obama. some have tried to characterize it as obamacare. for the longest time that was the biggest applause line at republican presidential rallies as candidate after candidate stood up and said i will repeal obamacare. let me guide the discussion that is guiding the issue across the street. early this morning several of my

colleagues on the republican side who voted against the health care reform came to the floor to express their opposition to the notion of a mandate. here is what the mandate is about. currently in america there are millions of people who have no health insurance. some of them by choice. young people think they're invincible. they won't buy it. some people can't afford it. but the fact is that even these uninsured people get sick. and when they get sick, the victims of trauma, automobile accidents, diagnosed with a disease, they don't stay at home and wait for death. they go to a hospital. when they arrive at that hospital, they're treated. emergency rooms, regular treatment. and then the bills are sent their way. and without health insurance, many of them can't pay the bills. a little over a year and a half ago i went in for one night, overnight surgery in chicago. first time i was ever in a

hospital since i was born. everything worked perfectly. the ending was great. couldn't have asked for a better result. the total bill start to finish was $100,000. lucky for me, i'm a senator. i have the federal employees health benefits program. it paid for almost everything. what if i had no insurance? well, they would have sent me the bill. perhaps i could have come up with the money to pay for it. but some people can't. and what happens then? the hospitals and doctors then take these bills and say, well, so and so didn't pay their bill. we're going to charge someone else who is paying more. 63% of the medical care given to uninsured people in america is not paid for. 63%. it is shifted -- that financial responsibility is shifted to those who do pay, those who are under government insurance

programs and private insurance programs. and what it means is for those of us in private insurance programs, we pay $1,000 more a year. $80-plus a month to pay off the bills of those who are uninsured. that is the subsidy which insured people pay to cover the unpaid medical expenses of the uninsured. that's the starting point. until we reach the point where everyone is under the tent of insurance, this will continue. uninsured people will get sick. those who buy insurance will pay for them. that is cost shifting. it happens every single day in america. the health care reform bill said you have to have health insurance. it is a mandate. but we know that some people can't afford it. if you're poor, lower-income categories, we will enroll you in medicaid, so you will have at

least medicaid insurance to pay your medical bills. at memorial medical center in my hometown of springfield, illinois, ed curtis, who runs that hospital, said to me, senator, if you just did that alone, if we could just get medicaid payment for everyone who walked through the door, we would be fine. what hurts us are those who pay nothing because they can't. that's a problem. the bill that we passed went on to say that if you're working, you will never have to pay more than 8% of your income for health insurance premiums. people would rather pay nothing. but 8% is a lot more manageable than put people who are facing 10%, 20%, 30% of their pay going to health insurance premiums. so we basically have created a requirement to have health insurance but a helping hand to reach that goal. so what about the people who already have health insurance? they are untouched by this mandate. just continue on.

let life continue. you've made your choice. you have health insurance. doesn't affect you. what i find interesting are so many senators, primarily from the other side of the aisle, who come to this floor condemning government administered health insurance, get the government out of health insurance. you hear that speech over and over. what they don't tell you is their own health insurance policies are administered by the federal government. mr. president, you and i are eligible as members of the united states senate -- so, too, are members of the house -- to be part of the federal employees' health benefit program. this was created decades ago to provide health insurance for people working for the federal government. eight million people and their families -- employees and their families are covered by this plan. what you've learned as a new senator is that they come to us once a year and they say,

durbin, you and your wife are eligible for federal employees' health benefit program and here are the private insurance plans you can choose from that are enrolled in our program. we have nine choices in illinois so loretta and i look through and pick the plan that we like. we pay part of my income as premium. the government pays the remainder. it is a government administered plan and each year we have open enrollment to change, if we wish. this plan has been wildly successful and popular. private insurance companies fight to enroll in it so they can cover federal employees. and we have good insurance, reliable insurance, affordable insurance, insurance that we can change if we don't like it. a few years back, one of my employees needed a specific foot surgery. it turned out her health insurance didn't cover it. but she knew the open enrollment period was coming. she waited and enrolled in a

plan that covered it. what a luxury. people across america would applaud if they thought they could get that treatment. government administered health care for members of congress. mr. president, i've waited patiently now throughout this entire debate for the first republican senator who condemns government administered health care to come to the well of the senate and announce they're dropping their own health insurance as a matter of principle. no way. i think people across america are entitled to health insurance at least as good as the health insurance that members of congress have today. i don't think that's a radical idea. and, in fact, the health care reform bill that we passed said that members of congress will be part of the same insurance exchanges which we are creating all across america. that is only fair. i'm hoping that it offers the same plans as the federal employee health benefit program,

but i'm sure it will offer me a choice. and with that choice, i'm sure my family will get good coverage. so when i hear the debates across the street suggesting that the notion of requiring people to buy health insurance is somehow un-american or unconstitutional, i struggle with that concept. we know what we're trying to do -- reduce the overall cost of health care for america. we also know that the requirement of having health insurance is not that much different than the requirement of paying in to social security if you go to work in america. or if you want another parallel, in my state, you have to have insurance to drive an automobile they don't want you getting involved in an accident without insurance. it's not fair to the other driver, for one thing, let alone the person who might be injured in the car. these are mandates under the law relative to insurance, one for retirement, the other for liability, that are built into the law and we don't have people marching in the streets over them. we've got to reach a point in

this country where we reach balance, and the balance suggests personal responsibility and it means that the millions of americans who should have, who could have health insurance with the help of a tax break, with the help, perhaps, of medicaid, should have that insurance so that the burden of their medical bills doesn't fall on every other family and every other insured person. those who are screaming for freedom ought to stop and think of something. those who are accepting the responsibility, the personal responsibility of having health insurance, are exercising their right to protect their family and they should have the freedom, the peace of mind of knowing that their neighbor, who didn't accept his personal responsibility, will not pass his medical bills on to them. that i think is the basis of what we are debating across the street. i would like to raise a point, if i can, about a bill that was pending this week. it was offered by senator

menendez of new jersey to end oil subsidies, federal subsidies to oil companies. this last sunday in chicago, i went by a b.p. gas station on the congress parkway, congress expressway. and i saw it for the first time -- more than $5 a gallon. $5,03 for ultimate gasoline at the b.p. station. illinois, for reasons i cannot explain, has the highest gasoline prices in america. we have refineries all over our state. i don't get it. but i know that it's a recurring problem and a recurring theme. every spring we go through this. the run-up to easter is the time for every politician in america to dust off the press release expressing outrage at our oil companies. they do it to us every year. and they come up with convenient excuses. "you know, it's all about uncertainty in the middle east." how long have they been playing that card?

no, it's about the change of seasons. you see, when we go from winter to spring, we just weren't ready for it. really? you weren't ready for the change of seasons? or, "there was a refinery accident in some town in the midwest 400 miles away and it really has disrupted everything." well, i don't buy it. i haven't over the years. what they're doing is what they can do. they run of the price of this commodity because we have no choice. until we have a choice in the vehicles that we drive or in the sources of energy that we use, we're kind of stuck with oil companies. but we're not stuck with paying a $4 billion annual subsidy to these oil companies. that's what the tax breaks we give to oil companies comes to. senator menendez of new jersey has said stop it, take the $4 billion, invest it in renewable, sustainable energy research and take the rest and reduce the deficit. the five biggest oil companies

had profits of over $137 billion last year. they won't miss $4 billion. and we should be ashamed that we continue to shove subsidies at them when they're so profitable. what is happening when it comes to oil exploration? it's a legitimate question. we are now at an eight-year high in terms of the oil production in america. starting under president bush, continuing under president obama we have more oil and gas rigs in place working today in the united states than in the rest of the world combined. so those who say, if we just drilled a little more, gasoline prices would come down. you have to look at that. we are increasing the supply yet the prices go up. and, secondly, we also understand that when it comes to these gasoline prices, that even when the supply goes up, the prices are going up. defies the law of physics.

demand is down because of the recession. supply is up and prices are going up. that violates principles of economics 101 that i studied in college. what senator menendez is suggesting is a move in the right direction, not just because we can't justify anymore the subsidies to oil companies, but because we should be investing in new ideas that will move us forward in the right direction. this morning we had a meeting -- i think the presiding officer attended -- and the c.e.o. of chrysler corporation was there. interesting man, sergio marchioni. and he's a curious fellow. i don't think he owns a suit and tie -- he never wears one. c.e.o. of a major corporation, he wears kind of a black knit sweater. see him all the time. but you got to give him credit. he took chrysler corporation, on the ropes, struggling, near distinction -- extinction, rather, and turned them around completely. they are looking forward to more

than doubling the automobile as that they're going to be selling. those who thought that the automobile bailout, as they call it, was a bad idea should listen to this man. i can tell him the story of belvedere, illinois, northern illinois, boone county. we have a chrysler production facility that marchioni came in to me and said is one of their best. they've now gone on to a second shift, and he said by the end of the year, we'll go to a third shift in producing cars for america. he gets it. and when you talk to him about fuel efficiency and fuel economy in cars, they're moving in this direction, they're committed to it. the president brokered an agreement with the major oil companies that they will make more fuel-efficient vehicles. that's good news for consumers. we need to be subsidizing research into better, more efficient forms of energy instead of subsidizing oil companies with record-breaking profits. mr. brown: will the senator

yield for just a moment? mr. durbin: i certainly will. mr. brown: i thank the assistant majority leader. i heard his comments about chrysler and the c.e.o. is in town today talking to some of the colleagues, and one of the untold stories of the auto rescue is not just that in my state, 800,000 -- 800,000 people are -- work directly or indirectly for the auto industry, 800,000 people. most of those are part of the supply chain that sell product -- that make products and that -- and sell those products -- i mean, a large number of them that sell those products that are assembled in lordstown or in toledo or different places in ohio. but one of the untold stories is that not only were these jobs saved and these companies saved from going bankrupt and who knows what would have happened to a say the like mine which pretty much of the state is dependent on the auto industry. but in the case of the tee low doe jeep plant, prior to the auto rescue, only 50% of the products, the components that went into the jeep wrangler were made in the united states, only 50%. after the auto rescue, after the president and the vice president negotiated with the auto

industry and -- and the auto task force and the house and senate weighed in and senator durbin is a leader of -- leader as a leader of this body, weighed in, now 75% of the products, the components that go into this jeep wrangler are made in the united states. so we're not just seeing the 5,000 jobs at lordstown making the chevy cruz or the jobs at honda assembly plants in mariesville, ohio, or toledo or for, we're also seeing a lot of the -- or ford, we're also seeing a lot of the supply chain, a lot of the components are made in the united states. and these are good-paying, often union jobs and often not union jobs, but they're all good-paying industrial jobs that give people a ticket to the middle class, helps them send their son or daughter to school, or buy a car. all that this has meant. without that, my state would probably be in depression, as the assistant leader knows. mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from ohio, that's a good point and one that we ought to make over and over again, because there's no question that the downturn in the recession forced the management of these

auto companies and the workers to step back and take a look at the challenges they faced. mr. marchionne, the c.e.o. of chrysler, said this morning we're where we are today because our u.a.w. workers, union workers, sat down at the table and said, we've got to agree on a future together or we're sunk. they agreed on that future and he said, now my work force is excited and productive. and you've just made the pointed. more business -- you've just made the point. more business is coming back from overseas. it's a great success story. mr. brown: i've been to the plant where they make the engine for the chevy cru disi, -- cruz, i've been to some of the assembly plants, not only are the workers excited -- and he the workers sacrificed a lot -- all kinds of people took a lot with the law -- with the managed bankruptcy of those two companies, but -- but we have seen not just the auto industry but for 12 years, from 1997-2009, nationally, and in my state -- and i assume in illinois too, ohio, illinois,

all over the country -- we lost manufacturing jobs in this country for 12 years. for the last two years, almost every month we've gained manufacturing jobs. the auto rescue's not the only reason. a productive work force, we're training workers better. i have a 55 college presidents i just met with that i bring to washington for a conference. it's the fifth year in a row. senator portman just met with them, congressman sutton and some others. and they are more focused than ever on manufacturing, working to train those people so they go into manufacturing. i mean, the students that they are educating are in a whole lot of fields but one of them is focusing on how do we train people to do this high-end, much more technical, complicated manufacturing than a generation ago? and it's starting to work. mr. durbin: and it's not lost o. when president obama said i never wanted to start an automobile company, he realized if we had not jumpe jumped in nt

he did, they might not exist today. mr. brown: it wouldn't have just been chrysler and general motormotors that faltered. honda, northwest of columbus, and ford, oivelg one of the other big three -- one that didn't ask for the rescue -- both of those companies wanted us to do the rescue because they knew if we didn't, their whole supply chain would begin to fall apart, too. so this mattered not just for cries will he and g.m., saving them now that they're putting thousands of meme all over the country -- tens of thousands back to work, including the foreign companies that have invested hey and hired a lot of american workers. i thank the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i would just add, and it is not lost on most americans that there are some political figures who have said publicly that they should have just gone bankrupt and gone out of business. i think the president made the right decision.

mr. marchionne said they've paid it all back. we can about to banks. we're a thriving corporation. we're doing well. he said, i have nothing but great news for you. but it was a bet made by the president on behalf of hundreds of thousands of workers and companies and it paid off. what it says is if we stand behind the basic pillars of the american economy -- and manufacturing is one of those, maybe the largest pillar that hold up this great economy -- that we can prosper and succeed. jobs being brought back from mexico and overseas into the united states -- i'm glad i lived to see it because i can remember when they were headed in the other direction. companies that were almost given up on by some politicians turn out, like g.m. and chrysler, are turning out new cars, thinking about the future. that tells me we can put this tosmght so when we here those

who say what we need to continue to do is shovel subsidies at oil companies that are $137 billion a year in profits, take that money -- we do have a deficit, you know -- take that money, invest it in something that will create jobs and take the balance and reduce the deficit. i don't think that's a bad outcome. there are lot oz of good things that we can invest in. the department of energy is talking about battery technology. that is still going to be our challenge for the future, finding ways to create power and save power for when it is needed. and i think we need to incentivize that kind of research in the future as well. so, mr. president, at this point i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, right now there's an issue on the mind of every hoosier and i think most americans -- not every american -- appeared that issue is the high price of gas. over the past few months, gas prices have risen higher and higher each week. currently across the nation i believe the average is somewhere close to $4, maybe $3.91 or $3 $3.3. in ip init' indiana, it's even n many parts of our state, well over $4 per gallon. that obviously has a significant economic impact on our country. it causes budgets to get tight tighter, planned vacations to

either be canceled or shortened, families, farmers, businesses across the state of indiana are having to rethink their budgets for the year and make tough financial decisions for themselves. and this is all at a time when unemployment continues to remain high, persons ar, americans areg to make ends meet. rising gas and energy costs only further weaken an already struggling economy. now, it is true that supply and demand of gasoline and oil prices clearly are subject to global considerations. there are concerns that the supply is not meeting the dema demand. that triggers some clear increase in prices of crude oil. there is also the concern that conflict in the middle east could potentially shut down

lanes of comerk commercial, comt of the middle east to the rest of the world. we have to acknowledge that. this is a trend that's been going up and up and up. we've seen gas prices more than double in the last three years. clearly now $3.50, $3.75 is not something that looks like it's a spike. it looks like it's the average that we would hope we could fall back to, and that certainly has real serious economic implications for this country. now, there is some good news here. the good news is that americans are increasingly understanding and learning that they can be -- that we can be a major player in producing energy. we're discovering abundant amounts of n.r.c. i energy in ts country that we didn't think that we had. a lot of that is right here in our backyard.

that's the good news. now, the bad news is that we have had an administration that for three years has been promoting policies that work against the goal of our achieving more energy independence. and that's the problem with the bill that we are currently discussing. because that bill raises gasoline prices by raising taxes on oil production. why in the world would we want to raise prices on gasoline at a tile when america's economy is struggle to come out of recession and we're working hard to get people back to work and at a time when gasoline prices are rising ple rising through ty and demand ires tha issues thate had, why in the world would we want to do anything that would further increase the cost of gas at the pump? the current tax code provides for a number of targeted tax

incentives for the energy sector. it is foreign note that the vast majority of those subsidies go to the so-called new wave of energy production, the renewables. only a small minority of those subsidies and credits go to producing the oil and the gas that we need that drive this economy. so that eliminating -- eliminating only those benefits that go to the production of the needed oil and gas that benefits our economy, at the same time extending the subsidies and credits and support for the renewables, is not the direction that we need to go. so it's not about producing more energy. it's about targeting just one sector of our energy industry:

that is, a fossil fuel energy source that is absolutely essential to driving our economy. if we want to eliminate oil and gas subsidy, we ought to put all subsidies for energy on the table. senator wyden and i have coauthored a bill for comprehensive tax reform, and in that bill we look at the idea that has been proposed and suggested not only by the bowles-simpson commission but by others saying let's get on a level playing feestle field ande willing to make adjustment even in our own bill if necessary to achieve that so that we can lower interest rates -- excuse me, tax rates on american companies and on the american people by getting us more to a level playing field. now we've all heard the president about the, we're doing all the

above, or we need to do all the above in terms of energy approach. unlocking american resources. he says put us back in the driver's seat of energy production. but the reality is that the administration's policies over the last three years have been directed at only subsidizing a certain portion of the all the above. and some of it has left for the essential production that we need to provide oil resources and make us less dependent on foreign oil. those are the areas where they have not been supportive. let me just give you a couple of examples. president obama has reduced the number of new offshore leases by half over the next five years. in terms of current exploration and production, 97% of offshore areas are out of bounds, can't

drill, can't explore. most recently the president rejected the keystone x.l. pipeline, a privately -- privately, not publicly -- privately funded project that would create 20,000 jobs and deliver more than 800,000 barrels of oil per day from china. and then just last week the president shows up and says we're going to improve the pipeline from oklahoma down to louisiana. but rejected doing anything to bring the pipeline from the source of the oil down to the point in oklahoma where it would continue on. and that's essentially like saying we have goods that we need to move. they're essential to the running of this country and the economy, and we need to ship those from chicago to new orleans. well, we're only going to build the road from little rock to new orleans. we won't have iran way of

transporting it to get it to that particular point in time, so it makes no sense whatsoever. you can't have it both ways. you can't tell the american people you support an "all of the above energy plan" and undermine attempts to produce energy sources. you can't say you want to reduce america's dependence on foreign oil and then block major parts of the keystone pipeline or tell political leaders in brazil that you want the u.s. to be one of your best customers. you can't tell americans you are focused on job creation and then impose one unrealistic regulation after another that will increase energy costs, jeopardize jobs and shut down plants across the country. but that's exactly what this administration is doing. the obama energy plan is to pay lip service to american energy production, at the same time while enacting policies that limit our ability to tap into domestic resources.

our country faces an energy crisis. we have high unemployment, we have troops putting themselves on the front line to protect oil in the middle east. but we can change that. we can unlock american energy resources. we can put americans back to work in doing so. we can protect our troops and reduce our dependence on middle east oil. we have the ability. we have the innovation. and we have now, we know, the resources to lead the world in energy production. it's time for the president to support american energy production. that's the real "all the above" energy plan. mr. president, i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i ask i be allowed to speak as if we were in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: i thank you, mr. president. i want to discuss what everybody else is discussing these days. i say discussing or maybe even cussing, and that's gas prices. and more to the point, some unfortunate finger pointing i think is going on in regards to our energy prices and why we see the increase that we are seeing at the gas pump. and really the role of speculation in regards to the futures market and the energy environment that we are now living in that is so challenging. i have the privilege of being the ranking member of the agriculture committee, which has jurisdiction over the commodity futures and trading commission. and i feel it is very important to address some of the claims being made by a number of my

friends, some across the aisle, this week with regard to speculation in the commodities market. from the rural farmer, mr. president, to the urban commuter, americans everywhere are obviously deeply impacted by high gas prices. that's the biggest and most often negative sign that we see when we drive anywhere where. we see all of a sudden that gas price has shot up 10 cents. unfortunately, i don't think that posturing or finger pointing does anything to minimize the pain felt at the pumps. mr. president, like the annual planning and harvesting seasons in kansas, a yearly occurrence happens here in washington, d.c. for certain members of congress to blame the commodity markets every time a particular commodity reaches an uncomfortable price level.

you see a big price jump, you obviously want to kpwhraeupl the commodities jump. you saw it during the 70's, the 80's, 90's. you could have the speech in the file, just pull out the file, cross out the date and start making these points. but let's talk some economic facts if i might. i don't think the populist rhetoric, while it actually fails to acknowledge that everyone's money is the same color in the futures market, for every buyer, there is a seller. for every seller, there is a buyer. the historical problem for future markets and the hedgers who use them is that oftentimes particularly in the deferred months contract there is not the liquidity or adequate number of market participants to take the other side of a trade to allow the hedgeer to manage their deferred price risk.

market participants who actually provide this liquidity provide a valuable tool that allows producers and consumers of products to lock in their inventories well in advance which can lead to lower cost to producers and certainly better prices for consumers. and if we have long speculation and the liquidity is provides is artificially driven from the market, the potential short-term advantage of lower prices could lead to shortages in production, higher demand and even higher prices for both energy and agriculture commodities. now my point in this dissertation on futures markets 101 here is to emphasize that speculation is not manipulation. speculation is trading to make a profit from anticipated price changes, either higher or lower.

manipulation, on the other hand, is intentionally acting to cause artificial price changes. as explained by the commodities futures and trading commission, the nonpartisan regulatory arbiter of speculation. speculation is excessive when it causes unreasonable changes in the price of a commodity. in fact, the cftc currently has the authority to regulate against price manipulation. so if you want to go to the people who are really in charge, make sure there isn't any manipulation, we already have the regulatory body and they are doing exactly that. and it has had its authority since its creation by congress in 1974. furthermore, we have experts at the clearinghouses, at the national futures association and at the cftc whose job it is to watch these markets minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day

to assure everybody that the discovery of prices between buyers and sellers is occurring openly and transparently. yet when prices just so happen to move above what somebody in this body might think is reasonable or an uncomfortable level, we have a tendency to blame the participants in the market rather than the multitude of factors and the economic variables that these markets participants react to each minute that the market is trading. let's examine some of these real factors that are affecting our prices of energy. first off, there is tremendous increased demand outside of the united states, in particular asia, china. they have caused the price of oil to rise rather dramatically. even with the increased production in canada, the united states and brazil, declines in the north sea, mexico, sudan and

libya have impacted the global supply. second, our u.s. refining capacity has decreased as a result of the stricter environmental regulations, where they get their crude from. both have lowered the supply of gasoline enough to prop up prices. we see reports in the press every day about one refinery making it big and the other refineries are having a lot of difficulty. third, restricted domestic energy development on federal lands disrupted ou futures -- our futures projections. fear over iran's nuclear weapons ambitions is leading to fear over gasoline. people try to stock up in anticipation of any supply disruption that would be based on the possibility of a conflict in the middle east. lastly, i would simply point out that speculators ignore the inflationary aspects of the

monetary policies of several central banks and the globe. it doesn't take a speculator to know when the u.s. treasury prints more money, it drives down the value of the dollar, drives down the price of oil materials priced in dollars. despite this fact we have too many seeking a solution for a problem that isn't there. one of the regulatory bodies found in their investigations as we look for somebody to blame, there have already been studies and investigations into whether excessive speculation is really manipulation. and they are manipulating prices. let's just take a look at what they found. last year a federal trade commission report on the manipulation of gas prices determined that none. complaints investigated violated any f.t.c. rule. a similar study by the cftc stated in its analysis -- and i

quote here -- "does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systemically driven changes in oil prices." last but not least the administration's own financial fraud enforcement task force set out to investigate illegal speculation in the energy markets. and to date it has found none. the effects of high gas prices on our economic growth and on each individual business and family are certainly well understood. we should be finding effective solutions to fix a failed federal -- a failed federal energy policy rather than trying to place the blame where it doesn't exist. and these solutions just don't stop at the increased domestic oil and gas production. they include implementation of workable environmental regulations. unfortunately, the multitude of regulations under this administration are anything but workable. they are like a katrina flooding

virtually every part of the economic sector. that's all i hear about when i go back home to kansas. there are a lot of things that are on people's minds, but regulation is number one, and i don't care what sector of the economy that we're talking about. there is a very real fear in my state that the new clean air regulations that we're just hearing about targeting coal-fired power plants could really disrupt our power grid. in a state that relies on coal for 75% of our power, this is just simply unacceptable. then if we continue moving forward towards cleaner forms of energy, certainly we want to do that but in a way that won't compromise the ability for kansans or for that matter any citizen of any state to access affordable energy. this includes the pending federal regulations on hydraulic

fracturing which will continue to play a huge role in my states' energy economy. in closing, mr. president, on the larger topic of domestic energy companies, i think it's really unfortunate for elected officials to come to the floor or for that matter to make a speech anywhere and single out specific industries and private u.s. citizens, even, for that matter who employ millions of americans and blame them for our energy woes. i think we're better than that. let's remember that attacking their profits, it's an easy target. it isn't going to hurt the few top level executives at these companies, but it will hurt middle-class americans and retirees who make up over 90% of the ownership of so-called big oil or so-called big anything and rely on their i.r.a.'s, their pension funds and their mutual funds for their very livelihood. so these aren't privately held companies. let's remember who actually owns these companies. it is our constituents, that's who it is.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the time under the control of the majority be divided as follows. mr. schumer for ten minutes, mr. cardin for 10 minutes, mr. levin for ten minutes, mr. reed of rhode island for ten minutes and mr. merkley for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: i rise today in support of the legislation

offered by my good friend from new jersey, senator menendez. before i do, i want to call attention to the highway bill and its holdup by our colleagues in the house. once again we're facing the specter of an unnecessary shutdown caused by intransigence in the house republican caucus and time is ticking away. should we reach the march 31 deadline without passing a bill, states' contract authority for construction projects will cease and 2.9 million jobs will be put at grave risk. it doesn't have to be this way. speaker boehner has once again been painted into a corner by the extreme wing in his caucus which is committed to blocking a responsible highway bill at every turn. it's clear that speaker boehner has run out of options. he's tried to pass a highly partisan house-drafted house

bill, and that failed. he has tried to pass a 90 daisuke extension on -- 90-day extension on that failed and then a 60-day extension on tuesday and that failed as well. now we've learned that the house will not vote on any type of extension today, either. time is running out. speaker boehner simply cannot pass a transportation bill of any length without democratic votes, and it's time he accepts that. fortunately, mr. president, there's an easy way out that already has a stamp of approval from some of the most conservative republicans in congress. the house could pass the senate bill. if speaker boehner put the senate bill on the floor, there's virtually no question it would pass by a large majority. you know, this is beginning to look a bit like the replay of the payroll tax cut episode.

just like then, the senate passed a bipartisan bill by an overwhelming majority. just like then, the speaker originally said he would act based on the senate compromise but then he went back on what he said. and just like then, with the deadline looming the speaker is unable to pass an alternative measure and is resorting to ask the senate for a conference. well, we all know how the payroll tax cut saga ended. republicans started turning on the speaker and calling on him to pass the senate bill. now that's happening here, too. earlier this week three house republicans from mainstream republican districts, congress members doled and biggert and bass joined the growing calls for for the speaker to put the senate two-year highway bill on the floor. these are major cracks in the dam and we believe it's a start of a trend. earlier today my my friend from

new york, pete king, also said he'd support the senate bill if the speaker put it to a vote. now, that doesn't come as a surprise as congressman king is a strong fighter for new york's transportation needs including mass transit, which are protected in the senate bill. the senate bill is about two dozen publicly declared republicans away from having the votes needed to pass. we believe we have those two dozen republicans in the house and more. they may not be publicly declared, but they are there. the senate two-year bill can be a lifeboat for speaker boehner. he should take it before it is too late. and now as we speak about the highway bill over in the house, here in the senate democrats are working hard taking on senator menendez's fine legislation. he was prescient to focus on this idea years ago and i'm glad this bill has come to the floor and i look forward to a debate

on the issue. in the last election, voters who gave those of us who have the privilege of serving in this chamber two distinct mandates. they told us to do two things at once. first, perhaps foremost, make the economy grow. create good-paying jobs. make sure that american -- the american dream burns brightly. the dream that says to the average middle-class family the odds are pretty good if you work hard you'll be doing better ten years from now than you're doing today and the odds are very good that your kids will do better than you. for that dream, which has burned so brightly in this country for hundreds of years, the candle began to flicker a little bit in this decade because median income actually went down even before the recession, which meant that even if you had a job -- and we know that there are millions out of work despite the fact that they look hard for jobs, but

even if you had a job, your income was declining. your buying power was declining for the average person. that is difficult. even people who do have work have a difficult time when they sit down at that dinner table friday night after dinner figuring out how they're going to pay the bills. the costs and needs keep going up, and even when you have a job, the income doesn't seem to keep up. so we first think of the people we've met who are struggling because they don't have jobs, and then we look at the people lucky enough to have jobs and still having a time making ends meet. and this congress has got to focus on jobs, the economy, and the middle class like a laser. so it's an obligation that voters sent to us and it's a justified one. now, second they said in no uncertain terms, rein in that federal deficit. rein it in.

and they're right. so that brings us to today. where we're fighting to grow the economy through projects like those like the highway bill, which will bring good-paying jobs to communities across the country, and we try to rein in this out-of-control deficit by passing the big oil tax subsidies act. it would be hard enough to accomplish one of these goals, but we're trying to do both. we can do it because there's a simple choice. it's obvious that at this time when there are so many needs, giving oil companies the kinds of tax breaks we do makes no sense at all. getting rid of these corporate subsidies to big oil is a no-brainer. decades ago they were passed. oil was $17 a barrel at the time. there was a worry that there wouldn't be enough production. maybe it made sense in those

days to give oil companies an incentive to explore and produce. but with oil hovering at 1 his hundred dollars -- $100 billion -- $100 a barrel, it makes no sense. but it remains on the books, amazingly enough. it defies logic for this government to spend billions of dollars for these taxpayers -- for taxpayers to give dollars out of their pocket every year when they are struggling to big oil. in tax giveaways while big oil is making record profits. believe me, mr. president, the free market gives the oilings enough of an -- the oil companies enough of an incentive to produce. when oil is $100 a barrel, they don't snead a subsidy to produce. they're going to produce every bit of oil they can. they make huge profits so they don't need a financial nudge from washington.

at the same time, middle-class americans get hit with a double whammy. they're paying $70 or more to fill up their gas tanks and then some of their hard-earned dollars are being used to line big oil's pocket. economists estimate the typical family will pay almost $1,000 more on gasoline this year than last. but families in my home state of new york and across the country are still struggling to make ends meet. as the economy slowly recovers, they cannot afford to get gouged at the pump. with billions of dollars worth of tax subsidies and gas prices at near-record highs, it's no wonder that the top five oil companies are on track for another record breaking year. these companies are not only the most profitable businesses in the u.s., they're among the most profitable in the world. in the past decade they took home a trillion dollars. not a billion.

a trillion. a trillion dollars in profits. so nothing wrong with profits in of themselves. in america we celebrate success. we want the private sector to survive and thrive. but at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt, and we're grappling with painful cuts because we have the dual -- dual goal of reducing the debt and reducing the deficit, it boggles the mind that we continue to subsidize such a lavish industry. now, i've watched my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand idly by while the type of funding that helps our middle class is threatened. now they choose these subsidies district to big oil over cancer research, over helping our veterans, keeping our highways and transit systems reliable? hardly any american would agree with that.

hardly any american, democrat, republican, liberal, moderate, conservative, northeast, south, or west would agree. try to wrap your head around it. big oil is reporting record profits, gas prices are at an all-time high and we, the american taxpayers are still subsidizing the oil industry. you -- you don't need the imagine of lewis carroll to come up with a more ridiculous scenario. and that is why i strongly support, and i'm proud to cosponsor, senator menendez's repeal big oil tax subsidies act. if our republican colleagues are serious about deficit reduction, the menendez bill is the chance to show it. there is no good reason not to support this sensible legislation. in fact, speaker boehner himself has said as much. let's not forget he was in favor

of repealing oil subsidies before he was against it. so, the bottom line is this: at a time of sky-high oil prices, it's unfathomable to continue to pad the profits of oil companies with taxpayer-funded subsidies. the time to repeal these giveaways is now. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i want to concur with the senator, senator schumer on the, his comments about the passage of senator menendez' legislation, s. 2204. this legislation is very important for america's energy needs, and i urge my colleagues to allow us to take this legislation up, and let's act on it and let's move it to the other body.

there's one commodity just about everyone knows the price of: a gallon of gasoline. people will have a rough idea of what a gavel milk or a -- what a gallon of milk or a dozen eggs cost but they'll know to the penny what a gallon of gasoline costs. the price is rising and people are understandably upset. they're upset because it costs more to fill up at the pump but they are upseptember -- upset because gasoline prices affect every other prices in the economy, including milk, eggs and bread. petroleum is a feed stock used in the production of not just transportation, in so many critical products including fertilizers. according to the united states information agency, e.i.a., the retail price of gasoline, regular unleaded was 27 cents higher for the week ending march 5, 2012, than it was a year ago.

e.i.a. reports fueling costs for the average u.s. household will be about $238 higher in 2012 than 2011. according to e.i.a., the price of gasoline has increased dramatically every year. 2011 higher than 2010, and 2012 is projected to be higher than 2011. this price increase is occurring despite the fact that the united states has stepped up its crude oil production considerably over the past four years by 1.3 million barrels per day. production is at an eight-year high. the u.s. is the third-largest producer of oil behind the saudis and russia. and domestic oil consumption is at a 15-year low. americans are driving 35 billion fewer miles today than they did in 2010.

if we are producing more and consuming less, why are prices going up? supply and demand would tell us they should be going down. the answer to that question is straightforward. crude oil and other products derived from it, including gasoline, are fungible commodities traded on world markets. increasing global demand for these commodities is putting a relentless upward pressure on prices. growing demand for oil in developing countries has reshaped the global market. developing nations now consume 47% of the world's oil. in 1970 it was 25%. the number of cars in the world exceeded one billion for the first time in 2010. with one half -- one half of the global growth occurring in china, beijing adds 1,500 new cars every day. another reason for price increases is market uncertainty over crude oil supplies.

much of the world's crude oil is produced in the middle east and north africa, regions plagued with turmoil. right now the united states accounts for about 9% to 11% of the world's crude oil production. this is despite the fact that we have less than 2% of the world's total proven oil reserves. we have 2% of the world's reserves, and we're producing 9% to 11%. we are in fact drilling here and drilling now with more oil rigs in operation than the rest of the world combined. according to the baker recount. according to economist dean baker at the center for economic and policy research, even if the u.s. productions could be increased by one-third overnight, that would increase world supply by 3%, which would lower price of oil by 7% to 8%. as baker notes, this is not trivial but is not the difference between $2 a gallon of gas and $4 a gallon of gas.

t. boone pickens said it best. i've been an oil man all my life but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. a recent associated press fat check analysis found there is no correlation between domestic oil production and the price at the pump. i'm for reasonable oil production. we need as much as we can get in a reasonable manner. as the report in "the washington post" on march 21 pointed out -- and i quote -- "a statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly inflated adjusted gasoline prices and u.s. domestic oil production by the associated press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of u.s. wells and the price at the pump. more oil production in the united states does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump. u.s. oil production is back to the same level it was in march 2003 when gas cost $2.10 what he

justed for inflation. but that's not what prices are now. that's because oil is a global commodity and u.s. production has only a tiny influence on supply. factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president's dictate the price of gasoline." the united states is incapable of having a significant impact on world crude oil and gasoline prices from the supply side of the equation. but domestic oil production does play an important role in bolstering our energy and economic security. we should produce where we can, in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner. while increasing domestic production and decreasing domestic demand may not be lowering world price, it does have a significant effect on imports. as a share of total consumption, oil imports declined from nearly 60% in 2005 to 45% hrafpt year. the -- last year, the lowest

level since 1995. and nearly one half of our imports come from the western hemisphere nations such as canada and mexico, while the persian gulf countries account for only 18% of our net imports. the biggest impact the united states could have on oil and gasoline prices is not on the supply side. it's on the demand side. we account for close to 25% of the world's petroleum consumption, even though we account for less than 5% of the world's population. the best way to continue reducing our demand for crude oil and gasoline would be to promote fuel efficiency with higher cafe standards. we made progress. we're doing better. we know we can do better than our current standards. replace conventional fuels with alternative fuels such as propane, not ral gas and biofuels -- natural gas and biofuels. that will help us consume less oil. electrified transportation focusing on hybrid and plug-in

electric technology, here you get jobs here in the united states helping our economy as well as helping our energy security. and boosting transit ridership by increasing funding through the federal transit administration. people don't like to be stuck in traffic jams. let's have a modern transit system that can help move our people. eliminating the tax expenditures that big oil could generate, over $20 billion over the next ten years. this is the bill we're talking about, s. 2204, the menendez bill. it takes the revenues that we are giving to the oil industry and using it to help pay for these green-energy measures. this makes a lot of sense. now it will hardly be noticed by the big five oil companies: b.p., chevron, conocophillips, exxonmobil or shell. they made record profits in 2011, $137 billion.

i talked about $20 billion over ten years. they made $137 billion in one year. that was up 75% from 2010. from 2001 through last year, big oil has made more than $1 trillion of profits. every penny increase in the pump increases their profit by another $200 million. so as we're suffering with prices going up, the big oil companies are making more and we're still giving them the subsidies where we could be using those subsidies to help america develop alternative energy sources. big oil has been getting big subsidies for 100 years. it's time to end the subsidies and use that money for developing alternatives to oil. that's the best and most sustainable way to address the high costs of gasoline at the pump. s. 2204 will help us bring down the cost at the pump. it's good for our economy, good for our environment and good for our national security. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized for ten minutes. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the skyrocketing price of gasoline is clearly causing tremendous hardship to american families all across this country, to small businesses, to truckers, to airlines, and in fact to the entire economy. we're trying to claw our way out of this horrendous recession, and the high price of oil and gas is not helping us. mr. president, i come from a rural state, and it is a state where people often drive 30, 40, 50 miles to work and back home again. and many of these workers make

$10, $12, $14 an hour. and when the price of gas goes up to $4 a gallon, this is money that is just coming right out of their paychecks, and it's money that they can ill afford to pay. many of them have seen stagnation in wages, and these high gas prices are doing their families severe harm. further, mr. president, i think the american people understand that our good friends at the oil companies continue to do phenomenally well in terms of the profits that they are making. in the last decade the major oil companies in this country have earned $1 trillion in profit while gas prices have soared. the repeal big oil tax subsidies act that we are debating today is a step in the right

direction. this legislation would repeal more than $20 billion in tax breaks for the big five oil companies and use roughly half of this money to extend renewable energy tax credits and use the other half for deficit reduction. over the past decades, our friends at exxonmobil, among others, have seen more profits at exxonmobil in a given year than any other corporation in the history of the world. meanwhile, many of the largest oil companies over the years have paid little or no federal income taxes. and, mr. president, let me just give you an example. in 2009, exxonmobil, again, exxonmobil, which has made more profits on a given year than any

corporation in history, in 2009 exxonmobil made $19 billion in profits while receiving $156 million refund check from the i.r.s. how's that, mr. president? pretty good deal? made $19 billion in profits, did not pay any federal income taxes, and yet received $156 million refund check from the i.r.s. in 2009, chevron received a $19 million refund from the i.r.s. after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009, not a bad deal. in 2009, valero energy, the 25g9 largest energy company in america with $68 billion in sales, received $157 million tax refund from the i.r.s. conocophillips, the fifth-largest oil company in the

united states, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009 but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. at a time when the american people are getting ripped off at the gas pump, the last thing that we need to be doing is giving big oil companies massive tax breaks, which only add to our deficit and national debt crisis. mr. president, in my view, we have got to do more than simply end these outrageous tax breaks that big oil has enjoyed. in my view, we must also end excessive oil speculation on the oil futures market. there has been a major debate over the last several years as

to whether spikes in oil prices are caused entirely by the fundamentals of supply and demand or whether excessive speculation in the oil futures market is playing a major role. mr. president, that debate is over. that debate should be put to rest. let's simply look at the facts. when we were in elementary school and in high school, we learned that what supply and demand is about is when supply is high and demand is low, prices go down. when demand is high and supply is low, prices go up. the reality of the matter is that today the supply of oil and gasoline is higher right now than it was three years ago when

the national average price for a gallon of gas was just $19.96 a gallon. more supply than three years ago when gas was $1.96 a gallon. in terms of demand, the demand for oil in the united states today is at its lowest level since 1997. internationally, during the last quarter of 2011, world oil supply exceeded demand by nearly tw2-1 while at the same time cre oil prices increased by over 12%. so let me recapitulate. supply is high, demand is low, and yet oil prices are going off the roof. what's happening? well, what's happening now is

that there is a growing consensus within the business community, among economists, among people who study this issue that the reason that oil prices are soaring is that excessive speculation on the oil futures market is the cause. exxonmobil, goldman sachs, the i.m.f., the st. louis federal reserve, the saudi arabian government, the american trucking association, delta airlines, petroleum markets association of america, the consumer federation of america -- all of these groups are involved in one way or another in studying oil prices. that's what they do, because many of them are affected by high oil prices. others of them are consumer groups studying the impact of

high oil prices. and all of them have agreed that excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gas prices, and that's the conclusion that more and more observers are making. interestingly enough, goldman sachs -- perhaps the largest wall street speculator on the oil futures market -- recently came out with a report indicating that excessive oil speculation is costing americans 56 cents a gallon at the pump. this is the conclusion of goldman sachs, perhaps the largest speculator on the oil futures market, themselves. now, i personally believe -- and many others believe -- that that number is low, but it is

important to understand that we now have a major speculator telling us what excessive speculation is doing in terms of gas prices. mr. president, last year the c.e.o. of exxonmobil -- not one of my best friends, not a company that i particularly trust -- but exxonmobil's president last year testified at a senate hearing that excessive speculation on the oils future market contributed as much as 40% to a barrel of oil. in fact, mr. president, bloomberg news reported on march 26, 2012, that according to commodity futures trading commission data, bets on rising gasoline prices advanced for 11 weeks through march 6 to the highest level in records dating back to 2006.

gary gensler, the chairman of the cftc, has stated publicly that oil speculators now control -- mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: gary gensler, the chairman of the cftc, has stated publicly that oil speculators now control over 80% -- over 80% -- of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than doubled over the last decade. in other words, the vast majority of oil on the future -- oil futures market is not controlled by people who actually use the product, not controlled by airlines or trucking companies or fuel dealers, people who actually use the product. but over 80% of the oil futures market is controlled by people, by speculators, whose only

function in life is to make as much profit as they can by buying and selling oil futures. let me give you just -- mr. president, let me give you just a few of the oil speculators and how much oil they were trading on june 30, 2008, when the price of oil was over $140 barrel, and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. on that day, goldman sachs bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil. morgan stanley bought and sold over 632 million barrels of oil. bank of america bought and sold over 100 million barrels of oil. the only reason these companies were on the oil futures market was to make as much profit as possible. they do not use the end product. mr. president, we have got to make sure that oil -- the price of oil and gas is based on the fundamentals of supply and

demand and not wall street greed. to correct this problem, i've introduced s. 2222 with senators blumenthal, tester, mccaskill, klobuchar, franken, sherrod brown, begich, and pryor. this legislation which i have filed also as an amendment to this bill, requires the cftc to useual of itsz authority, including its emergency -- all of its authority, including its emergency powers, to eliminate excessive oil speculation. i should point out that this emergency directive in our bill is identical -- and i want my republican colleagues to hear this -- is identical to bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the house of representatives in 2008 by a vote of 402-19, with significant large-scale republican support.

mr. president, the dodd-frank financial reform bill stipulated very clearly that the cftc needed to eliminate, prevent, or diminish excessive oil speculation by january 17, 2011, 14 months ago. they have not done it. the cftc has not obeyed the law, and it's time for congress to tell them that breaking the law is not acceptable and what they have got to do is in fact to defend the consumers of this country. mr. president, in my view, what this legislation would accomplish is that by immediately curbing the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction in control of the commodities future trading commission on or through which energy futures are trade -- that's what this amendment does -- it also eliminates excessive

speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy commodities. bottom line, mr. president: congress has got to tell the cftc to obey the law, that they've got to use their emergency powers to end excessive oil speculation, and when we do that i believe we will see oil prices go down. so, mr. president, i ask for bipartisan support of my legislation. i thank all of the cosponsors who are already on the bill, and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: let me thank senator san de sanders in this f

speculation. before he leaves the floorks --e he leaves the floor, he's taken a major action to require the cftc to consider excessive speculation and put a lid on that. that was our intention and they should get about it. the bill that we're considering is an example of corporate welfare. it is an egregious -- it would end an egregious example of corporate welfare and hopefully we're going to be allowed to be on this bill and will be able to defeat a filibuster and vote for cloture sometime, i understand, tomorrow. at a time when some argue that the federal debt is so out of whack that we need to cut funding for programs that provide food to hungry children or health care to our seniors, surely we ought to be able to agree that the most profitable corporations in the country no longer need these enormous

subsidies, and here we are. those oil gas subsidies have not reduced the price of oil or gas. that's obvious. the price of gas is complex. i've said many times before, and i'll say it again now, that the huge increase in speculation plays an important role in the price -- the high price of gas. the permanent subcommittee on investigations, which i chair, has spent years examining these issues, and the evidence is compelling and overwhelming. the financial speculators have played a huge role in driving up gas prices at the same time that supply and demand have not significantly changed. to the extent that supply and demand have changed, supply is up and demand is down. so if market forces were really in control here, the price of gas would be going down, not up. some estimate that as much as 50 cents on the price of every gallon of gas is the result of excessive speculation.

and another huge portion of the price is simply the wide profit margin for the hoyle an -- for e oil and gas companies. i agree with my colleagues that we must do what we can to ensure that gas prices do not swing wildly and that they do not pull precious resources out of the all-too-tight budgets of american families. i think we've got to focus on some of the true causes for the rapid rises and the swings in gas prices and not hide behind unfounded assertions that taking away corporate welfare from an already incredibly profitable handful of companies will somehow or other drive up gas prices. study after study and expert after expert have told us that removing these subsidies will have no impact on those prices. for instance, the codirector of the university of california-berkeley center for the study of energy markets has

said -- quote -- "the incremental change in production that might result from changing oil subsidies will have no impact on gasoline prices" -- close quote. and the nonpartisan congressional research service has concluded that removing these subsidies would not impact gas prices because -- quote -- "prices are well in excess of cost and a small increase in taxes would be unlikely to reduce oil output" -- close quote. so ending these subsidies is not going to impact the price of gas. but maintaining these subsidies does impact taxpayers. these subsidies take money from the vast majority of taxpayers to simply add to the already astronomical corporate profits of oil and gas companies. just five companies last year reported a profit of $137 billion. over the past ten years the profits of just these five companies have totaled nearly $1

trillion. that's trillion with a "t." these astronomical numbers can only really be thought of in connection with the only other number of that size which is similar, and that's the federal budget. congress must soon enact deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion or our nation and our economy is going to face sequestration. facing the slashing of programs that impact nearly every american. that $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade is about the same amount as the expected profits for just five oil and gas companies. these companies which are reporting record profits while paying record low rates of taxes should be paying their fair share to help get and keep our economy strong. while some complain that the united states has such an egregiously high corporate tax

rate that companies fail to invest here, the facts show just the opposite. just a short time ago the congressional budget office released a report that corporations paid an effective tax rate of just 12.1% last year, which is the lowest percentage in decades. corporations pay extremely low taxes in the united states, and those rates have been steadily declining. corporate taxes now make up a record-low percentage of all federal revenues. the oil and gas subsidies should be cut, and the savings used to pay for our nation's other priorities. that's why i introduced an amendment last year that would have cut just one of these oil and gas subsidies. by eliminating these unnecessary oil and gas incentives and adopting the bill before us, we would be able to preserve or reauthorize a series of other energy tax incentives and grant programs, some of which have

expired and others in danger of expiring, all of which would help promote american energy efficiency and self-sufficiency. extending these provisions will help lower energy costs for businesses and families, would help diversify our energy strategy beyond oil and would reduce the dependence on imported oil that undermines our economy and threatens our national security. among these important tax provisions are section 45 production tax credit for electricity produced by wind and other renewable sources. section 1603 program to encourage the installation of energy equipment. the section 48-c advanced energy manufacturing credit, that promotes american production of items used in renewable energy production, such as wind turbines and advanced batteries. the cellulosic ethanol credit to encourage production of fuel through renewable feed stocks and the tax credit for refueling

infrastructure that helps encourage installation of alternative fuel infrastructure and electric charging stations in homes and in businesses. these and other energy provisions which are in our bill are vital tools in our battle to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. the substitute alternatives for fossil fuel and to promote and sustain domestic manufacturing. energy is a huge cost for businesses in nearly every field. if we can improve energy efficiency, we could lower costs and increase competitiveness. rest assured that our competitors around the globe are doing that, and we need to do the same or risk falling behind. energy efficiency is also vital to national security. it's our dependence on foreign oil from volatile regions of the globe is an enormous complication to our foreign policy. it leaves our economy vulnerable to actions by unfriendly nations such as iran. the more we can loosen the grip

imported fossil fuels have on our economy, the more prosperous and secure we will be. so, mr. president, rarely is the choice as stark as it is before us. we can continue corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry, which does nothing but add to those companies' corporate profits and the nation's deficit. or we can end these subsidies and push for the priorities that would help ensure our energy future and reduce our deficit. i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i first ask unanimous consent that melissa lane and michael johnson be granted privileges to the floor for the 112th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i join to the stop

wasting taxpayer subsidies. we need to reduce the deficit and develop clean energy solutions. while the oil industry is thriving, making $137 billion -- with a "b" in profits last year, rhode islanders are paying nearly $3.90 per gallon at the pump. working families are being forced to cut back because of high gas prices. in turn, big oil companies should have their wasteful tax subsidies eliminated. we should be working to fuel the united states economy, not the oil cartels and big oil companies. that is why i am a proud cosponsor of the repeal big oil tax subsidies act, which put a stop to these wasteful tax breaks and use the savings to invest in clean energy that will create jobs, save money for middle-class families and increase america's competitiveness in the global

clean energy economy. addressing gas prices and reducing our dependence on oil requires smart, balanced and responsibility national energy policy. there are no silver pwhruts but there are -- es with bullets but short-term and long-term steps we should take. in the near term we have to be ready to respond to geopolitical steps by making it clear we are prepared to release oil from the strategic petroleum reserve if such a measure is necessary because of geopolitical developments. we need to continue efforts to prevent excessive speculation and speculators from manipulating the market and needlessly inflating energy prices. and i have asked the commodities future trading commission effectively our cop on the beat to do that and sought to provide them with the tools and funding to achieve this objective. we also need to continue investment in smart-growth policies to promote mass transit and next-generation vehicles and alternative energy.

that is why i vote for things like better fuel for cars and mass transit. improve energy efficiency and developing clean energy technologies will help cut our oil addiction. working with president obama, we successfully persuaded automakers to double the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks. after staying the same for over 20 years, under the obama administration the average fuel economy of vehicles will be 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. and the administration has proposed standards to further increase these standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. combined by the year 2025, these standards would save 2.2 million barrels of oil per day and save consumers money at the pump, an estimated $8,000 over the lifetime of a vehicle.

these new standards will help reduce the impact of future price hikes by we think us off -- weaning us off oil. the oil industry continues to push increased drilling as a solution to reducing gas prices. i support safe, responsible domestic oil production and the administration's efforts to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. indeed, u.s. domestic oil production reached its highest level since 2003. the number of oil rigs in the united states has more than quadrupled in the past three years, and the u.s. dependence on foreign oil is at its lowest level in 16 years. net imports as a share of total consumption declined from nearly 60% in 2005 to 45% in 2011. but when oil companies tapped into resources on federal property, the taxpayer must be fair compensated and assured it is done safely and responsibly. therefore, the oil company should pay their fair share of drilling royalties and inspection fees to make sure

what they do is done right. as chairman of the interior and environment subcommittee of the appropriations committee, i work to secure an increase in the inspection fees for offshore drilling and will push for the same for onshore drilling this year. for all the sloganeering about domestic drilling, we know we can't drill our way out of this problem. and even the oil companies admit that the biggest factor in the price of gasoline is the cost of crude oil, which is set in the world market. it is not pegged to u.s. production. in fact, an associated press analysis of 36 years of energy information administration data shows no official correlation, in their words, between domestic oil production and gas prices. again, we need a balanced, well thought out national energy policy, one that will help reduce our dependence on oil and the amount paid at the pump. what we should not be doing is continuing to give away billions in corporate welfare to big oil

while middle-class families see their gas prices rise. it isn't fair. the oil companies who soak up these subsidies are effectively charging taxpayers twice for the same gallon of gasoline. mr. president, middle-class families are struggling. oil companies are not. i urge my colleagues to repeal these oil subsidies, make clean energy investments in america and take commonsense steps to get our fiscal house in order. and i urge passage of this very important piece of legislation. and with that, i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for about five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. this is a tough time for

americans. we all know families who are sitting around the kitchen tables struggling to figure out how to make ends meet. but those tough time have not extended to the boardrooms of the big five oil companies. in 2011 alone, those companies saw more than $100 billion in profits, a sum that's difficult to get your hands around, difficult to understand. what is $1 billion, let alone $100 billion not in revenue, but in profits. exxon is sitting on $8 billion that it has not reinvested. shell is sitting on $13 billion cash in hand. the five-largest companies together -- b.p., exxon, chevron, conocophillips and shell -- have cash resources of $59 billion and have made nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last decade.

meanwhile american taxpayers are not only being forced to hand over larger and larger portions of their paychecks at the pump, they are also being asked to have the share of their taxes go in additional subsidies to these large companies. let me restate that. when you go to the pump and you pay $4 or more than $4, well, the oil companies make a tremendous profit. there's nothing wrong with making a profit in america. but what seems wrong is that these same companies are then coming to these hallowed halls and saying "we want a handout from the general fund." now those companies know that there's many other pressing needs in america. indeed, there are many folks who are hungry across our nation. there are many families who are hoping but cannot save enough to send their kids to college.

many families who are pressed by the loss of our manufacturing jobs, our middle-class, living-wage jobs who are finding that on service jobs they are having a tough time meeting the mortgage. so families are struggling, and certainly they would like to see this body say we understand the challenges you face. we understand the cost of tuition for your children is way outpacing inflation, and you're worried about the possibility of your children having the full opportunities that should be available within our society. but they're worried about keeping their home. but they're worried about finding that next job if their current job goes away. but they're wondering why aren't we helping with those problems with these funds instead of giving those funds away to the oil companies. the only explanation that they can come up with is the oil

companies are very powerful. they can come here and talk to this chamber and say, you know, we just want more. it's more important for us to add to the billions we have in the bank than it is to have basic nutrition programs expanded in this country. it's more important for you all to give us money to add to the money we have in the bank than to address the desperate infrastructure needs that are needed around our nation. it's more important for you to give us a hand out rather than a hand up to struggling families in this nation. well, mr. president, i disagree. i think it's more important to help our families. i think it's more important to help our children. i think it's more important to build our physical infrastructure for the economy of the future. i think it's more important to build the infrastructure through

education, the intellectual infrastructure of our nation that provides both opportunities to individuals and opportunities and strength to our economy as a whole. now, there are some who say that these giveaways reduce the price of oil at the pump, reduce the price of gasoline. nothing could be further from the truth. we all know what's driving the price of gasoline. demand is down because people have enough to spend. supply is up so it's certainly not demand and supply. what we do have is a big increase in speculators. speculators are going to the commodities futures trading commission and they are making bets because of the crisis in the middle east, because of the issues with iran, because of the concern about oil flowing out through the strait of hormuz, that others will also buy oil futures, so they will buy them, too, and they will make a lot of money on the way up, and the result is for all of us higher prices at the pump. so if you want to do something

about oil prices, you take on the speculators. that's why in dodd-frank, we gave the cftc the ability to exclude speculators from that marketplace. say you have to have positions, you have to have an end use for oil. but they haven't used that power. maybe we need a stronger bill here to be passed to suppress the speculation since the cftc is not doing its job. but what we know for absolutely certain -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. merkley: i ask for 30 seconds to close. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: what we know for certain is giving powerful oil companies the people's money to add to the money they are keeping in the bank, the billions they are sitting on will not do one thing to drop the price of oil. let's help american families, not the most powerful who have no need for these funds. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. we watch fuel prices skyrocket, shockingly so in the last few months, as the average price of a gallon of gasoline breaks records again and again for this time of year. today the national average when i last checked was $3.90 per gallon.

when president obama took office, americans paid $1.95 for a golan of regular gasoline. now they are paying more than twice that price. some analysts are speculating gasoline could top $5 a gallon by the summer. now senate democrats propose raising taxes on gasoline production. we hear a lot about an all of the above energy approach, and that needs to be put into practice. this should include expanding access to america's plentiful resources. instead, the president insists on a flawed energy strategy, such as using taxpayer money or high-risk projects like solyndra while delaying drilling in the gulf. the president has slowed permitting -- the permitting process, he has blocked leases, and he has supported higher energy taxes and more regulations. his actions have come at the

expense of valuable opportunities for greater domestic energy. the gains that our energy producers have made are in spite of the president's policies, not because of him. the de facto moratorium on drilling in the gulf of mexico made it clear that strengthening the country's energy security was not a white house priority. the plan the president proposed for offshore oil and gas leasing for the next five years would open less than 3%, less than 3% of offshore areas for production. then there is the rejection by the president of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the subject of an extensive environmental vetting process, a project which would guarantee nearby available oil from our largest trading partner. the president may talk about the need for oil and gas pipelines and even try to take credit for the lower part of the pipeline

that did not need his approval, but there is no denying that his administration is responsible for roadblocks standing in the way of a better national energy policy. the 830,000 barrels per day that the keystone pipeline would transport offers a 7% increase to current imports. vetoing it keeps americans vulnerable to spiking gas prices and the dangerous whims of energy providers from volatile regions of the world. high fuel prices can have far-reaching economic effects. according to the oil price information service, americans spent more on gasoline in 2011 than in any other year in the past three decades. some $448 billion. for the average household, about 8.4% of the family budget or

$4,155 went toward filling up at the pump last year. of course, it's more this year. this means consumers have less money to spend and invest in their local communities, ultimately hurting the economic growth we desperately need. in 2008, then-senator obama said he would have preferred a gradual adjustment of gas prices. that same year, energy secretary to-be steven chu told "the wall street journal" -- "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of europe." unquote. this is the president's choice for energy secretary, someone who wants our gasoline prices to be at the $8 per gallon level that they are experiencing in europe. this mentality has not changed since 2008. earlier this month, president obama said the only solution was to start using less.

that lowers the demand, prices come down according to the president. he later asserted that -- quote -- "how much oil we produce at home" is -- quote -- "going to set the price of gas worldwide." to quote the president. somehow, using less will lower the prices, according to the president, but producing more will not lower the prices. in other words, the president believes in only half of the principle of supply and demand. indeed, basic economics tells us otherwise. it tells us that alleviating demand can lower prices but having a greater supply does that, too. the argument that the president is trying to make that domestic production is inconsequential does not add up. not expanding production forces

american wealth to go overseas because we have to buy our oil from overseas. as charles krauthammer recently wrote in "the washington post," "drill here and you staunch the hemorrhage. you keep those dollars within the united states economy." and that's exactly what we need to do in these troubling times. according to the institute of energy research, we have enough oil within our borders to supply our own fuel needs for 250 years. that's not senator wicker talking. that's not a presidential candidate talking. that's the institute for energy research. 250 years that we have here in the united states, and yet they are being kept off-limits by the administration. now the administration wants an $85 billion energy tax hike. this new tax will not translate into cheaper gasoline, a fact my democratic colleagues have, in fact, acknowledged. it will make it more expensive

to produce, drive up imports and hamper economic investment. according to a study by the congressional research service, higher energy taxes will increase gas prices and likely increase foreign dependence, exactly what we don't want to do. this would ultimately hurt average americans who depend on affordable gas prices to get to work every day, and businesses, small businesses that need fuel to transport their goods and services. we have seen how the administration likes to use taxpayer money on high-risk bets like solyndra and algae instead of gambling on unproved ideas, we should be ensuring economic growth with policies that strengthen our energy capacity. we're blessed to live in a country with plentiful resources, and we are far from maximizing america's energy potential.

mr. president, i have filed an amendment to this bill, amendment 1966. the amendment would establish a production goal for the obama administration's five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan. it calls for three million barrels of oil per day. and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by the year 2027. compared to today's levels, this increase in production would triple america's current offshore production and reduce foreign imports by nearly one third. by setting these benchmarks for the output of oil and natural gas, we can make measurable progress towards energy independence. so i would propound this parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. if we were on the bill at this point, would it be in order for me to offer such an amendment number 1966 at this time? the presiding officer: if the pending question was can

sempletd 2204 it would take unanimous consent to offer an amendment to that measure because there is not an available amendment slot at this time. mr. wicker: i regret that and i hope that we can negotiate on both sides of the aisle, mr. president, so that amendments such as this can be offered to set benchmarks. we could use an additional three million barrels of oil per day, ten billion additional cubic feet of natural gas, to help us attack this very serious energy problem. i would simply conclude by saying that today's high gasoline prices confirm the urgency of pursuing better energy strategies as demand for oil continues to increase across the globe. taking steps now is essential to meeting future needs and bringing relief to the pump. and seeing no one who is seeking to speak -- does the gentleman

seek to speak? if so, i will yield the floor. mr. hoeven: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: request the opportunity to speak for up to ten minutes on the pending energy legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i'm here today to introduce a substitute amendment to the menendez act which is currently under consideration on the senate floor. that is senate bill 2204. the amendment that i would like to -- the substitute amendment by like to introduce today is legislation that i've authored along with senators lugar and also senator vitter. it's legislation that would approve construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline and authorize that that construction proceed. that authority is provided to congress under the commerce clause of the constitution, and with gas prices now close to $4

and going higher, congress needs to act. president obama has turned down the pipeline, he continues to block the keystone x.l. pipeline and it is time for congress to act on behalf of the american consumer. every single american, every hard-working american, is feeling this pain at the pump. keystone x.l. pipeline would help us produce more supply, more energy supply for our country to help reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. it will help us create more jobs in this country to put more -- close to 13 million americans who are now unemployed to help put those americans, put more of those americans back to work. and, of course, to help reduce our reliance on oil from the middle east. the first chart i have with me here today shows what's happening with gasoline prices in the united states. this is over the last three-year period. and this shows that the gasoline

price was about $1.87 when president obama took office three years ago. today the national average i believe by triple a is on the order of $3.91. so the price of gasoline during the obama administration's tenure has more than doubled. it has more than doubled. i think there's something like eight or nine states now where the average price of gleench in those states is -- gasoline in those states is over $4. in places like chicago, the president's hometown, i believe that the average price in chicago is on the order of $4.68. if you go right down to the corner here right now the capitol i filled my car the other day, cost more than $100 to fill the tank and i think the price was $4.39 a gallon. so what's the solution offered in the menendez legislation? what's the solution proposed by

the obama administration, what is the solution proposed in this bill we're considering right now here on the senate floor? well, what that bill would do is it would raise taxes on energy companies. it would raise taxes on energy companies. let's think about this. we're going to raise taxes on these energy companies so we're going to increase their costs. when you add taxes, that means it not only raises their costs, which will create even higher costs at the pump for american consumers but also tends to restrict supply. if you want less of something, and if you want it to cost more, what do you do? you tax it. so this legislation does exactly the opposite of what will help the american consumers with the price of gasoline at the pump. instead we need to increase supply. we need to increase supply by providing more supply, we help create downward pressure on

gasoline prices. that helps our hard-working americans not only today but tomorrow as well. let's talk about that. you know, why are gas prices high? it is supply and demand. this is economics. this is about supply and demand. you increase supply, you put downward pressure on prices. you increase demand, you put upward pressure on prices. global demand for oil is growing. we know that. global demand is growing. so we need to increase the supply,wise that growing demand continues to push gasoline prices higher. here's the amount of crude oil that we produce in the united states along with our good friends in canada today. that's shown in the first bar on this chart. and you can see it's just below 10 million barrels a day. that's where we are now. with the current policies that the administration has in place, we will actually produce less supply in the future. less supply in the future.

so think about that. if gasoline prices are a function of supply and demand, it's not only the supply and demand today, it's what people anticipate the supply and demand will be in the future. if you have growing global demand, which we know we have, and we have an administration that is constricting supply, then not only do you have an issue in terms of present supply and demand but people say there's going to be less supply, growing demand, that puts upward pressure on prices. so the actions of the administration have a direct impact, a direct correlation with the price of gasoline at the pump and 2459s why i showed in the previous pump under -- under this administration gasoline prices have more than doubled. so what we need to do is we need to produce all of the above. we need to produce all of the above. now, note that i said produce. i don't mean talk about it. i don't mean block it when it comes to building needed infrastructure like the keystone x.l. pipeline or preventing us

from drilling offshore or preventing us from drilling onshore or having red tape that presents permits and a regulatory burden that prevents us from producing more energy. i mean actually doing it. not blocking it, doing it. this third bar shows that if we just work to produce more oil and gas in the united states and canada, we can produce more than we can consume, than we consume, within 15 years. that's just oil and gas. that's not even all of the above. that doesn't count producing all the natural gas we have in this country and in canada or biofuels or other sources. that's just oil and gas if we start working to produce it rather than having the administration continue to block it. and of course that's what i'm talking about with the keystone x.l. pipeline. the president has studied the keystone x.l. pipeline, the administration has studied it, the state department has studied it, the e.p.a. has studdeddity -- studied wit for

three and a half years. the department of energy has come out and said they did a study, june of last year. in their study they said we need the crude in the united states, we will use the crude in the united states and it will lower gas prices on the east coast, on the gulf of gulf coast and ie midwest. secretary chu's department produced the report and that's what it said. after three and a half years, the president says that's not long enough, the administration needs more time to make a decision after his state department depth said they'd have a decision done before the end of the year, before the end of the year, the president says we need more time, maybe sometime after the election, maybe. so we need more time to make the decision. so congress said okay, we'll help out. you've expressed concern about the routing of the pipeline through nebraska. we'll pass legislation to kind of give you support and encouragement here that says

they can go ahead and build the pipeline and we'll give them whatever time they need to reprowt nebraska because that's what identified as the problem. we passed that as part of the payroll tax cut extension. the president denies it. turns it down. blocks it. and he continues to block the keystone x.l. pipeline today. so a couple weeks ago, bipartisan legislation, the very same legislation that i'm offering in this substitute amendment, we bring to the senate floor. bipartisan legislation. we have 11 democrats that vote with us. 56 votes. well over a majority. 56 votes. and the reason we didn't get 60 votes on the legislation is because that day the president was calling members of this body, this senate body, to get them to vote no. so we got 56 votes instead of the 60 we needed. and the very next week, the

very next week after calling members of the senate to get them to vote down this legislation that would authorize moving forward so we could actually bring oil in from canada, bring more oil from my my home state of north dakota to refineries, the very next week after blocking the pipeline, after calling members of the senate to get them to vote against it, the president goes to curking,le oklahoma -- cushing, oklahoma and takes credit for the southern leg of the pipeline project saying somehow he's splieting it. -- expediting it. interestingly enough that's the only portion of the pipeline that doesn't require his approval. but after blocking it he goes down and takes credit for somehow expediting the portion that was going to be built anyway. while he continues to block the two-thirds that actually brings us more oil. so go back to what i said just a

minute ago. we need more supply. if the policy of this country is to say all of the above but then go about blocking our ability to produce more supply, guess what happens -- prices go up. because what counts are the actions. the market says -- the presiding officer: the senator's ten minutes has expired. mr. hoeven: i ask permission for another 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: so the market takes that into account and says look, if supply is going to be constrained we anticipate higher prices in the future with growing global demand and that's what you see, prices rising at the pump. look, we can't have -- can have energy security in this country. we need to increase our oil production in this country and work with our neighbor to the north, canada, rather than have them send their oil to china which is what will happen if we can't build these pipelines. we need to increase our use of natural gas, we need to do all of the above, increase

renewables with a market-based approach, a market-based approach and use technology to drive energy production in this country and working with canada with better environmental stewardship. what i mean by that, in canada oil is produced in the oil sands with in situ which is the new technique, similar to drilling rather than the old methods, more energy, better environmental stewardship. look, we can create a more secure energy future for our country, we can create jobs here in america and we can reduce the price of gasoline at the pump for hard-working americans but we need to take commonsense steps and we need to take them now to produce more oil and gas, to produce more energy of all kinds in this country. and we're asking for the president to work with us to do just that. so, mr. president, i ask at this point, i have a parliamentary inquiry, when the

senate resumes consideration of the pending energy the tax bill with would it be in order for me to offer a substitute amendment which would approve the exeen exeen pipeline to help -- keystone x.l. pipeline to help americans with the price of gasoline? the presiding officer: if the pending question was s. 2204 it would take unanimous consent to offer amendment to that measure because there is not an available amendment slot at this time the. mr. hoeven: so no amendments will be allowed. mr. president, i think that that is unfortunate. it is time, it is well past time to take action on behalf of the american people. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i follow my friend and colleague from north dakota, who has been a real leader here in these chambers trying to educate not only those in these chambers but really

across the country, the value, the importance of the keystone x.l. pipeline and what it means to this country not only in terms of resource that -- that we need but also in terms of jobs, not only construction jobs but what it means to fill up a pipeline and provide for a product that goes down to our refineries. again, when we're talking about an economic boom here, we're better -- where better to look than to our neighbors to the north, and i thank senator hoeven for his leadership on this. i, too, want to talk about our opportunity as a nation to do more when it comes to increasing supply within our own country. as has been mentioned on this floor numerous times today, numerous times yesterday, we are in a position as a nation to be doing more to access our own resources, to make us less

dependent on countries that don't like us, to make us more energy secure, less energy vulnerable, and at a time when the geopolitical scene is so shaky, every step that we can take to -- to make us more secure from a national security perspective and an energy security perspective is clearly import -- important. so i have a substitute amendment that i have filed that i think is important to this debate. i think it is important when we're talking about our access to supply. what i'm going to discuss here in my ten minutes is -- is not new. members here have heard me talk over and over again about the prolific oil resources that reside in alaska. according to the energy department, we've got over 40 billion barrels of oil that could be produced up north, providing not only the energy but the energy security, jobs, new revenues. we've got a pipeline that is

built already. we don't need to deal with the permitting issues there. it's just waiting to carry oil. and we've got overwhelming support from alaskans on this. what we don't have is what is -- is perhaps most important and that's permission from the federal government to actually develop our huge oil fields. and the biggest on the continent is in the northwest corner of anwr. for years we have sought to develop a total of 2,000 acres in what is known as the 1002 area for which congress set aside back in 1980 to access for energy exploration. they knew back then that this area had great potential. the 1002 area is projected to contain more than 10 billion barrels of oil. if you were to put it in context this way, 1 million barrels a day coming down that pipeline, coming to us from anwr. that's enough, mr. president, to replace venezuela or saudi

imports for about 30 years. about 30 years. to think that we could get off of venezuela, that we wouldn't need to go to saudi arabia, tin cup in hand because we're producing it ourselves here. think about what that means to us. and for those who bring about the speculation argument and what that does to prices, just think how this would mess the speculators up if you add a million barrels a day on-line. but instead of us as a country embracing this as an opportunity , every excuse in the book has been thrown at us against development. we hear that the environment is going to be degraded, that wildlife will be disturbed, that despite a better environmental record than just about anywhere else in the world at prudhoe bay , we just can't do it, they don't trust us to do it. but for 20 years, we've been hearing now, well, don't -- don't go towards anwr, don't develop anwr because, you know, it's going to take you ten years

to get that on-line. and so, therefore, it's not even worth considering. even the late-night tv shows, jay leno jokes about that now and he says, democrats said it would take ten years, ten years ago. well, mr. president, if you don't get started, it's never going to happen. we're going to keep that money in the ground indefinitely if we don't get moving on it. so i don't -- i don't accept the the -- the arguments that have been tossed out but they haven't accepted the facts that we've presented. so i've got an amendment that's -- that's changed just a little bit here. it is -- it's designed to really address this debate. it would prohibit surface development entirely and yet it still allows for a very substantial portion of the oil to be accessed from our state lands with drills reaching beneath the coastal plain. and we do this by allowing only subsurface occupancy. we use extended horizontal

drilling production. right now it can reach about eight miles mielz underground -- eight miles underground in all directions. and as the technology continues to advance more and more, that refuge's oil could be tapped. and again, mr. president, we're not going to be occupying the surface. this is no surface occupancy, is this legislation. all the land-based structures would be located on adjacent state lands. you wouldn't see permanent roads , wells, buildings, pipelines. wouldn't even be constructed on the surface of the refuge. if you -- if you were to put together a slide show of -- of development, the surface -- the surface would be unchanged before, during and after production. so this is -- this is anwr, this is probably in the spring because you've got tufts of -- of grass that are coming up through the melting snow. but this is pretty much what it would look like before, during and after because we are underneath through the technology. so the amendment that i'm offering gives us here in the

senate a chance to -- to put reason ahead of rhetoric, policy above politics when it comes to oil production in the state. it's a chance to end this decades-old dispute about whether or not development can proceed safely. we -- we haven't just met the opposition halfway here on anwr, we've met them 90% of the way. we've written into the amendment more -- more stringent environmental safeguards than on any other federal lands. we've sacrificed 90% of the revenues, which alaska is entitled to under our statehood agreement. we've proposed a 50-50 federal split. and -- and now it just seems we're begging to access a small fraction of the reserves from miles away. it just -- it defies logic, mr. president, to think that, again, an idea, a concept like this would -- would be kept off the table.

i realize that many are dug in on thissish -- on this issue so i have attempted to change the debate, change the conversation. i would ask the senate to take a moment to consider how far we have really compromised on this amendment to understand why it is different, and i would hope that we can get a vote on it. mr. president, i would ask at this time in -- as a point of parliamentary inquiry, when the senate resumes consideration of the pending energy tax bill, would it be in order for me to offer my amendment, which is amendment number 1976, at that time? the presiding officer: if the pending question was s. 2204, it would take unanimous consent to offer an amendment because -- to offer an amendment to that measure because there is no available amendment slot at this time. ms. murkowski: so the president is telling me that all of the available amendment slots have been filled by the majority leader?

the presiding officer: that is correct. ms. murkowski: i thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have another issue that i would like to -- to bring up today in the balance of my time. i've got two other amendments that i would like the body to -- to consider. i understand what you have just said, but one of the things that i think we recognize is that much of our country's production can -- can lag due to accumulation of red tape, due to permitting issues. we know that the federal government can't necessarily set global commodity prices but it can -- it can create a situation where capital that might be invested in america mineral production is stranded for long periods of time and that's exactly what we see happening. i think it's unacceptable. so what we shouldn't do, then, and particularly in the case of energy and minerals development, is -- is to subject projects to an unnecessarily long permitting process. i have an amendment that would begin to remedy this situation

and it would do so by using the very language that the president used last week with his executive order he signed on march 22. my amendment incorporates provisions that have attracted pretty broad bipartisan support on the past highway bill that was considered by this body. these provisions are ones that will work. according to a september 2010 report by the federal highway administration, these reforms have cut the time required to complete environmental reviews in half. they've mitigated the delays calls by last-minute legal challenges. what they do more specifically is take the president's executive order and -- and put some teeth to them, if you will. the president just simply asked the agencies to consider making certain improvements, but what i have done through my legislation is -- is ask for a process for states to no, ma'am nate items that might be subject -- to

nominate items that might be subject to nepa, allows for a shortening of review periods, designation of a single lead federal agency. but it is a situation that i do think rests on a good premise. the president has suggested that that -- that this is an approach that needs to be considered when -- when, again, they're making such improvements. i would suggest if it's good enough for the president, good enough for our transportation ease, as we've seen demonstrated in the highway bill, that it's good enough for our energy, mineral and infrastructure needs as well. so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 1985, which includes all of the provisions that i have described. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object.my friend --

reserving the right to object. my friend and colleague from alaska, i would just say we have a bill before us relative to the subsidies, tax subsidies being given to the major oil companies , $4 billion a year to companies which registered $137 billion in profit last year. it is such a popular measure that it -- moving to it attracted a 92-4 vote in the senate and we are trying to bring that to closure and get a vote on it. i know the senator has an amendment she feels is vawbility vawbility -- is valuable. i don't know the merits of it. i'm sorry i wasn't on the floor to hear the entire explanation. but we have just gone through a transportation bill where after more than a week on the federal transportation bill, we entertained an amendment from your side on contraception. and so we'd like to, if we can, limit amendments to relevant issues and limit them in number and try to actually pass a bill in the united states senate. be almost historic. and i hope that we can do that

in a bipartisan way and i invite the senator from alaska to join us in conversation about that. but until we can reach an agreement on that, i'm afraid i'm going to have to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. murkowski: well, mr. president, i do think it's unfortunate that we won't have an opportunity. i know that several of my colleagues will be coming down, have already come down to offer up -- up their amendments. we've been told that the -- that the tree has been filled. the amendment that i am proposing -- i actually have two. one, as i have described, is probably broader in scope but i actually have a second amendment that -- that literally takes the president's executive order and -- and provides for -- well, provides instructions to the agencies to do a rule-making to implement them within one year. this is not something that the senator from alaska has -- has designed. this is the president's executive order. but i think it is designed to

get us to a -- an expedited permitting process so that we don't have the lag times that we see, whether it's on transportation infrastructure or whether it is on energy issues. i think it is a good measure and i would ask my colleague from illinois, in the -- in the effort to be working together, which i appreciate, to take a look at this amendment. a apparently will not be able to introduce or to call up amendment 1986. but again, what that legislation -- or what that bill would do is pretty simple. it's just to codify portions of the president's recent executive order. it's entitled "improving performance of federal permitting." he has suggested it. i thought it made sense and now we're urging the agencies to provide for an implementation. again, i do think that this debate that we're having on the

floor this week is an important debate. we're focused on the issues that -- that people in this country are talking about. folks back home are -- are very concerned. i just met with a group of students. one young man, high schooler from yakitat, probably driving his first car and they're paying in excess of $5.50 at the pump. when you're a 16, 17-year-old boy, that's pretty high. when you're a person our age, that's pretty high. what are we doing as a congress to help address these issues? so i -- i -- i can't overstate my -- my disappointment that as we're dealing with these very difficult issues in what we all know to be a great deliberative body, that we -- we can't move to a process where we could allow for -- for fair and germane amendments that i think would help to address some of the energy problems that we

face, recognize where we are today. i see that my colleague from louisiana has joined us on the floor and my time has expired. so with that, i will yield the floor and thank the president. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. i also come to the floor to offer amendments to this bill. and, mr. president, through you, let me assure our colleague from illinois, they're not amendments about contraception or any other unrelated issue. they're energy amendments. they're amendments that go directly to one of the greatest challenges all of our constituents, fellow citizens face, which is the ever-rising price at the pump. i'm ghad we're on this men -- i'm glad we're on this menendez bill because at least it puts us on that major challenge that faces louisiana middle-class families, lower middle-class families and those families in illinois and all around the

country. and so i bring amendments directly relevant to that. the first amendment has to do with supply. you know, first of all, let me say, mr. president, why i oppose the menendez bill. it's because when you tax something at a higher level, when you increase the tax on it you get less of it. rand so it'and so it's going toe less energy; in particular, less u.s. domestic energy. and when you lowe lower supply,u increase the price. it is going to increase the price, have a negative impact. i think the opposite approach -- we need to increase splierks -- we need to increase supply, starting right here in the united states. my amendment offered along with senator murkowski of alaska, number 1965, would do that. what it would do is replace president obama's current

five-year plan for outer continental shelf leasing with basically the plan that existed previously, which is double president obama's plan. so president obama's plan, which he put in place after coming into office, is about half of the previous plan. it backs us up, it turns us around, moving us in the wrong direction. amendment 1965 would turn us back, move us in the right direction and adopt pretty much that previous plan to expand our access to our own u.s. energy resources offshore. and so, mr. president, with that said, i ask unanimous consent -- excuse me one minute -- i ask unanimous consent that when the senate returns to consideration of s. 2204, the pending energy tax bill, it be in order for me

to offer amendment number 1965 which i have authored along with senator murkowski. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: the senator from louisiana & can i get into debate about whether taking $5 billion away from five oil companies that reported $137 billion in profit last year is going to change production of oil, bus we'll save that for -- but we'll sthaiive for another day. this amendment needs to go through your leader and with some understanding as to whether we're going to stay in the energy field or go far afield as we have in previous bills. i am afraid i am constrained to object until that takes place. the presiding officer: the senator objects. mr. vitter: that's particularly unfortunate because everyone knows our leader,er, everyone on our side has

absolutely agreed to offer energy amendments and give the other side an equal number of energy amendments and we're perfectly greeb agreeable to thd everybody knows that. it is in that context that i bring up another energy amendment, our nement autumn 199 -- our amendment number 1997. this is another huge opportunity we have in the united states right here at home, and that's enormous oil resources that we can get from western shale. according to the institute for energy research, quote, "the usgs estimates that unconventional u.s. oil shale resources hold 2.6 billion barrels of oil with about 1 trillion barrels that are considered recoverable under current economic and technological conditions. these 1 trillion barrels are nearly four times the amount of

oil reserves, saudi arabia's proven oil reserves." that's the potential we have right here in this country, near must reserves -- enormous reserves available now, recoverable now. what's the problem? well, one big problem is that the obama administration has canceled all leases to access this oil shale. there was movement to properly, responsibly access that 1 trillion barrels. that has been canceled under the obama administration. my amendment, number 1997 -- again, obviously, an energy amendment; can affect price at the pump -- would expedite movement toward that important research -- resource, and would get us moving again in the right direction, accessing that u.s. energy resource. and with that said, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate returns to consideration of

s. 2204, the pending energy tax bill, it be in order for me to offer that amendment number 1997. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: for the reasons stated earlier, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: mr. president, if i can wrap up, again, i think it is really unfortunate. everybody knows that republicans are perfectly willing to limit ourselves to relevant energy amendments. that's what we're doing, that's what we're bringing on the floor. leader mcconnell has offered that. leader mcconnell has offered a like number of energy amendments from the democratic side. what's happening is we're being completely shut down and shut out. now, the main issue is not that i'm aggrieved -- the main issue is that the american people are being shut out, the folks i represent, the folks all of us represent are being shut out of

offering good, sensible ideas to at least debate and vote on, to access more american energy, more u.s. energy, to help solve the pressing problem of the price at the pufn in that way. let's control our own destiny that that way. it is a sensible solution, a major solution. it'll move us in the rioter direction. -- it'll move us in the right direction. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i am glad to see the senator from illinois here on the floor to object to my next proposal. mr. president, you know, throughout our history, from time to time, we have passed legislation that if there was ever a need for it%, it passed a long, long time ago yet it remains on the books. i think one of the great and outstanding examples of that is a thing called the jones act.

the jones act, i'm sure, may have had some rationale behind it back in 1920 when it was enacted. well -- and i'm not sure there's one american out of the thousand who has ever heard of the jones act -- but the jones act has a direct impact on oil supplies, on the cost of oil, and the cost of other products. because what the jones act says, incredibly, is that any ship that goes between two u.s. ports -- i.e., whether it be honolulu, hawaii, san francisco or, one of the gulf coast ports to the northeast or anyplace between two u.s. ports -- can only be transported by u.s.-owned, u.s.-built, u.s.-owned, and u.s. crude vessels. so, i mean, talk about protectionism ..., i mean,

there's probably no greater example than this. so the jones act enacted in 1920 that required that has cost consumers, especially in places like hawaii where the transportation of goods is long distances, enormous amounts of money. in other words, the 19 -- february 2012 energy information administration report, there are only 56 tankers that meets the jones act requirements, which asaccounts for less than 1% of both the total number and the total dead weight tonnages of tanks tankers in the world. so less than 1% of the tankers in the world are able -- able, by law -- to operate between two u.s. ports. so what does this do? i think obviously when you're talking about supply and

capacity, it drives up the cost of petroleum. in fact, sometimes it's two or three times the rates that a foreign-flagged ship rates -- again, according to the energy information administration. not only that, the jones act tankers, those 56, aren't readily available, so the costs can be even higher than what we're talking about. let me just give you another example of the harms the jones act does -- the harm the jones act does to american consumers. 1999 u.s. international trade commission, not a republican or democrat or liberal or conservative organization, the u.s. international trade commission said that a repeal of the jones act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22%. a 2002 economic study from that staple commission found that -- from that same commission found that repealing the jones act

would have a effect of $665 million overall on the u.s. economy. that's probably now given the price of oil close to $1 billion. the jones act adds real direct cost to the consumers. as i mentioned, particularly -- and i noticed the senator from alaska on the floor -- to hawaii and alaska. a 1988 g.a.o. report found that the jones act was costing alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,820 annually for increased prices paid on goods that were shipped from the mainland. in 1997, the hawaii government official asserted that "hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the jones act." this amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in hawaii." again, those figures are from 198 to 1997 -- 1988 to 1997, and

obviously they are higher today. now, everybody says there's nothing that can be done immediately about the price of oil. my friends, if we repeal the jones act, we would have an immediate effect on the price of oil because when you're transporting oil from the gulf coast to the northeast and it costs two or three times more, if that supply is restricted to be transported only by these 56 tankers, then obviously, according to figures that are accurate, that it costs two to three times more, then by allowing other foreign-flagged ships to move these goods and services but particularly oil tankers, you could cut the cost of oil -- of gasoline immediately. so the next time you hear the president of the united states or my friends on the other side of the aisle, there's nothing

that can be done now about reducing the price of a gallon of gasoline, you can do it by repealing the jones act immediately. and if there's ever -- if there's ever a law that long ago outlived its utility or usefulness, if it ever had any, it was this law that was passed in 1920. only american-built -- you can't even buy another one that is -- a tanker or a ship that's built in another country and not have it fall under the jones act, even if it is american-owned, an american crew. amazing. so obviously, what i'm leading to, obviously, is that we repeal the jones act. and if not repeal it, waive the jones act. if not waive it, waive it just for the transport of oil, for

oil and gas tankers. if that's not enough, let's just waive it for six months. couldn't we just do that for six months? so i know what the response of the senator from illinois is going to be, and that's his duty here on the floor, and i respect that. but, my friends, if we're really serious -- if the price of a gallon of gasoline is now this march, according to media reports, the highest that it's been in history, and depending on what happens an in a lot of different areas of the world, particularly the middle east, what happens with iran and other things that are going on in this very dangerous world that we're living in today, it could go considerably higher. so why don't we take a commonsense approach and at least for six months waive the requirements of the jones act for only oil and gasoline

tankers for just six months? it seems to me that that would make a great deal of sense. so, i know that all four of my unanimous consent requests on these amendments are going to be denied. but, first of all, i think that the jones act should be preeld. -- should be repealed. completely. but if it cannot can't be repealed, couldn't we at least waive the jones act restrictions on coastwide trade for oil and gas tankers? if we can't waive it permanently, can't we waive those restrictions for six months? and if not that, can we just -- because we are discussing energy and the price of oil -- waive the restrictions, the jones act restrictions on coast wide trade for o*eul and gasoline for -- for oil and gasoline for six

months? with the indulgence of my friend from illinois, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate returns to consideration of s. 2204, the pending energy tax bill, it be in order for me to offer -- i want to offer them all, but offer my amendment 1948, which is, as i described, would waive the jones act restrictions. in other words, allow a foreign flag tank tore move oil and gas -- tanker to move oil and gas, a waiver for six months to move just oil and gas tankers so we can immediately reduce the cost of transportation, which would then translate itself at the pump at every gas station in america. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object, i believe the shipbuilding industry in arizona is about the same size as it is in illinois, so i don't come to

this issue with any particular hometown or home-state view, and i'm open to the senator's suggestion. but i would say that at this moment we are clearly focused on doing one thing, and that is eliminating the $4 billion annual subsidy to the five big oil companies who registered $137 billion in profits last year. moving to this measure was voted favorably by 92 senators. and we're trying to move this to a vote, and perhaps we move to another issue, the ones you're proposing, at another time. but at this point i have no other alternative but to object to my -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccain: mr. president, i always enjoy a little dialogue between myself and the senator from illinois. i hope that he would have the same passion concerning all subsidies, including the outrageous and disgraceful subsidies -- and there is a lot of solar in the state of arizona. a lot of solar. but i don't believe that -- and

i'll stop here. but i do not believe that any, if we're going to repeal the oil and gas subsidies, let's repeal them all. let's repeal them all. i'm not sure, again, the logic that says if we are able to immediately reduce the costs of oil by repealing the jones act, which then would reduce the cost of transportation, would then reduce the cost of gasoline, why we should out of hand reject such a notion, such a motion or an effort to do so. but i understand what the position of the majority is, and the distinguished democratic leader. so i know others are waiting, so i thank the senator and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. how much time remains on our side? the presiding officer: no time remains. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, president obama often boasts about oil

production that he really had nothing to do with. and my amendments that i'm bringing forth today would allow him to be proud of his own record instead of his predecessor's. that's why, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate returns to consideration of s. 2204, the pending energy tax bill, it would be in order for me 0 offer amendment number 1956 and 1957. amendment 1956 would accelerate permitting of oil and gas exploration on our federal public lands. and amendment 1957 would require federal agencies to use existing environmental review documents for oil and gas permitting. the presiding officer: without s there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. objection is heard. mr. barrasso: the reason i have come to floor is to speak on behalf of of these amendments i have filed, a few weeks ago we

learned oil production on federal public lands is down. specifically, we learned there was a 14% decrease in oil production on federal public lands and waters from 2010 to 2011, and an 11% decrease in gas production from 2010 to 2011. on march 14, bob abbey, the director of the bureau of land management, testified about this before the appropriations committee. he explained that there had been -- quote -- "a shift in the oil and gas production." a shift, he says, "to private lands to the east and to the south, where there is a lesser amount of federal mineral estate." that's why amendment number 1956 would accelerate permitting for oil and gas exploration on our federal public lands. and that's why i just offer that. so i take a look at the amendments, the discussion on the bill on the floor, and that's why specifically i offered an amendment that would rescind the administration's rules requiring what is called master leasing and development

plans. these regulations were put into place over two years ago by the secretary of the interior. it is unclear why the secretary issued these regulations. they add more red tape. they cause more bureaucratic delay and they slow down american energy production. this amendment would also require the administration to set goals for oil and gas production on federal public lands. it would ensure that the united states maintains or increases onshore oil and gas production. i have also filed that second amendment, 1957, which would require federal agencies to use existing environmental review documents for oil and gas permitting. we take a look at that amendment, this would expedite the time that it takes to prepare environmental analyses under the national environmental policy act, often known as nepa. too often nepa delays onshore and offshore exploration. my amendment provides a commonsense solution. it requires agencies to use in

whole or in part an existing environmental review document if the document is substantial the same as the permit under consideration. this amendment doesn't exempt age sreus -- agencies from complying with nepa and does not provide for categorical exclusions. it provides for agencies to use their previous work so they don't have to reinvent the wheel. madam president, i am disopponented the majority continues to prevent the senate from doing its job and that we heard an objection to these amendments. high gasoline prices are causing hardships for american families and american businesses. my republican colleagues and i filed a number of amendments to s. 2204. we would like to have votes on these amendments. we would like to take steps to increase american oil production. instead, like we just saw, the majority says "no." no to more american energy, they say. no, they say, to jobs.

and no, they say, to strengthening our energy security. we can do better, madam president. and it is my hope that we will. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. ms. murkowski: madam president, i ask permission to speak for up to no more than five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. i wanted to take just a few minutes this afternoon to thank my colleagues who have come down to the floor this afternoon, and for their efforts to offer what i believe are our very substantive, very meaningful amendments to the legislation that is before us. i think we can condense the message that you've heard here this afternoon pretty easily. the fact of the matter is that the bill before us is highly

misleading and i don't believe it will work. the legislation that has been introduced, s. 2204, is not going to put an end to federal subsidies for oil and gas producers, because there are none. there are no subsidies here. the oil and gas industry actually sends money to the federal government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars each year, and it's not the other way around. basic tax deductions that allow businesses to retain more of their earned dollars is not the equivalent of handing them a check. and so i think that's the first thing that we need to get out on the table and make very clear. and the second point that i just want to reinforce is s. 2204 is simply not going to work. by definition, increasing costs will not lower prices.

there is nothing that i can think of that if we tax it more, it will make it more affordable and more abundant. it just doesn't work that way. and judging from both history and some recent international examples, it's virtually certain that s. 2204 would have damaging effects on this country. back in 1980, the carter administration imposed a windfall profits tax -- we remember that. this was a tax that was imposed on domestic crude oil. and according to the congressional research service, that tax reduced domestic oil production. it increased our dependence on foreign nations. and it collected far less in revenue than was expected. the example that is more current on an international scene is one that i spoke to yesterday, and this is the example in great britain. a year after raising its oil tax rates, production declines in

great britain have increased from 6% per year to 18% per year. so, as a result, great britain is reversing that course. they're now planning to offer new incentives to encourage producers to return to the north sea. all we need to do is look at a realtime example of what one country did in an effort to deal with high gas prices. they increased the taxes. investment and production goes overseas. now they're turning the corner on this, and they're working to reduce their taxes. madam president, i think there is clearly a better way here. the other side of the aisle has refused to even consider amendments that will increase federal oil and gas production, create good jobs in this country, generate billions of dollars of federal revenues at a time that we desperately need them. restrain, if not, reduce gasoline prices and increase our

domestic energy security. we believe -- we believe very strongly that the solution to these many problems should be a reasonable combination of increased domestic production for which we have huge, huge world-class untapped resources which are still locked up by our federal government. america could be the world's largest oil producer, and we could be independent of opec. that is real, madam president. that is achievable. but we've got to set our mind to it. we've got to make that happen. and we've got to have the federal government get out of the way or help us with the right incentives to do so. the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal revenues from increased production could and should help support the research and development of our renewable resources, our alternative energy, as well as efficiency

and conservation. we know that building out the energy of the future, renewables, alternatives, this is expensive. how are we going to fund it? well, many of us believe that resources that come from expanded production could help us with that. and yet, what we're presented with today is a bill that does nothing more than raise taxes, raise taxes on an industry that has created good jobs, is providing us with a resource that we need. we're not even allowed to offer a single amendment to produce one additional drop of american oil. that i think's unfortunate, madam president. i wish that it was otherwise. but i do think the debate, the discussion that we have had on this floor in the past couple days has been good and helpful in helping to educate the american public in terms of what we truly have as a nation in terms of our capacity and our capability to produce if given

the opportunity. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: what is the parliamentary situation at this time? the presiding officer: the majority leader retains 16 minutes in time. mrs. boxer: i'm confused a little bit, because didn't the minority have extra time? did they ask for extra time? spoeup she asked for -- the presiding officer: she asked for object and no one consented. mrs. boxer: i would ask consent that i have an additional 5 minutes on to the 16. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: madam president, i think it's very important that we understand what we're trying to do here. the senator from alaska said it's been a good debate. yeah, it's been a good debate. but let me tell you what's not good. what's not good is that big oil is getting corporate welfare.

big oil is ripping us off at the pump. they never had greater profits. we're being asked to sacrifice and pay more at the pump because of instability in the world, because of problems with the refineries, even though we have never drilled as much as we're drilling now. big oil exports our oil now. we have never had as many exports as we have now. and big oil gets billions of dollars of subsidies, so big that i will tell you $2 billion a year in u.s. tax breaks. and let me tell you, to just explain how that compares to something we do that's very near and dear to my heart and every mother and father, grandma, grandpa or aunt and uncle, which is we put about a billion dollars a year into after-school programs, madam president. when we have millions of children waiting, $1 billion a

year on after-school programs where we give away $2 billion a year to the most, shall we say, successful companies in america. i want to show you what i'm talking about because i don't want people to think this is rhetoric. these are the facts. so when my republican colleagues come on the floor and defend these profits, let's talk about what they are. now, remember, we have been in a deep recession for several years now. remember, madam president, as well you do, that president obama and we had to confront the laws of 800,000 jobs a month, a month. and now thank goodness he's turned it around, we have turned it around. it's still not good enough, but we were in the worst situation. during that time, small businesses went out of business.

people lost their homes. if it wasn't for the president's leadership, we would have lost the auto industry in america. thank you, mr. president, for saving the auto industry in america, thank you for that. and i was proud to vote for that even though i had a lot of problems with the auto industry not moving quickly enough to fuel-efficient cars. now they are doing a great job with it. so during that time when americans were suffering, we were bleeding all these jobs, and even now just getting back on our feet, what has happened to big oil? while they have raised our prices at the pump. in 2009, this is all the five oil companies made $64 billion. in 2010, madam president, big oil made $74 billion. and in 2011, they made a whopping $137 billion.

so they went from $64 billion in 2009 to $137 billion in 2011, and my republican colleagues are crying bitter, bitter tears for them. oh, let's keep giving them back $2 billion a year. why? why would we do that? when we are sacrificing and our constituents are paying more at the pump and big oil is profiting from it. there is no reason for this kind of an increase at the pump. there is no reason for it. look at what's going on here. if they just made the normal profits that they made, we could have some relief at the pump, but oh, no. and so now we're going to reward them, the republicans are, by allowing them to keep these subsidies. that started a long time ago. when did those subsidies start?

in the 1980's, most of them. in the 1980's. because we wanted to help them get moving. well, how much more do they have to earn before we say they can get off corporate welfare? you talk about welfare queens, here it is. and my republican friends defend giving these people who have ripped us off at the pump billions of dollars of subsidies. and they are exporting the oil we drill here. they won't keep it in the country. we had a proposal for the keystone x.l. pipeline, madam president, to keep the oil in the country. my friends voted against it on the other side of the aisle. they don't care. they just want these companies to have their way, to do with it what they want. and if they want to send our oil to china, fine, that's what they

want, but they also want to keep their subsidies. it isn't right. i want to see these subsidies done with, and i want to see us invest in alternatives to these big oil companies that hold us by the throat and have alternatives. i have been all over this country looking at the alternatives that we're developing now. we know, for example, in brazil, they use the sugar beet to create their gasoline, and they are completely free from imported oil. that's the kind of thing we need to do. i am fortunate that i drive a hybrid vehicle, and i get 50 miles to the gallon, so i don't go into those -- for gas that often. but when you go in there, it's a shock. we want to have cars and let

them be big cars. if people need that for their families, i understand it. i have grandkids. i know what it is to put your grandkids in a small car. it's hard. we need to have the larger cars. they need to be fuel efficient. we're going to get there. we are getting there already. so isn't it better to take that money away from people who are ripping us off at the pump, away from the corporate welfare queens here and put it into alternatives so our people are no longer victims to their crisis, and that's the fight we are having. that's the debate we are having. and on the other side, they say drill, baby, drill. and you know what? i am for drilling where it makes sense. do you know how many acres the oil companies are holding now that they haven't drilled upon.

it is pretty amazing. my friends say open up the arctic to drilling, a precious environment, god given. placed in a refuge by -- i believe it was dwight eisenhower. am i right on that? yes. they want to go in there and ravage it. what don't they drill on their nonproducing acres? it looks like 75 million nonproducing acres on shore and offshore that they hold leases on. oh, no, that's not good enough for them. they are only drilling on 25% of the leases they hold, of the acreage that they hold in those leases. how about use it or lose it instead of drill, baby, drill? drill, baby, drill in here. don't go into the coast of california where they want to go or washington or oregon where we have fishing, tourism,

recreation. you know, there are so many people here that i listen to that make the arguments for the oil companies. i am so tired of it. how about speaking up for the american people who are getting brutalized at the pump. how about speaking up for the people who make their living off of a beautiful, pristine environment. oh, by the way, many, many jobs in my state, over 400,000 jobs. 400,000 jobs related to a pristine coastline, and they don't care about that on the other side. they want to open it up, push these people out of the way and create a few jobs because there are far fewer jobs created from drilling. and as president obama has said many times and the other side

gets rankled. we only have 2% of the world's proven oil reserves, and we use about 20% of energy. so you do the math. as the president said, you could drill in your grandmother's bathtub, you could drill in the great lakes, you could drill it any way you want. you will not find enough oil. so let's get off foreign oil, let's tell the oil companies to drill, baby, drill where they have the acres, and let's look at these prices and let's understand, and we'll look at it again, the profits of big oil. they are crying all the way to the bank, as my dad used to say. look at this. in the height of the recession, they are making record profits and crying to keep their subsidies, and my republican friends crying right along -- oh, here, have a tissue. we're so sorry for you. we're so sorry for you, even though we have to turn away

millions of children from after-school programs because we don't have more than a billion dollars to spend on it, they are giving away $2 billion a year. that's just one example. that's just one example. i hope we vote for the menendez bill. i hope we vote tomorrow on that to stop the filibuster, to vote it up or down, because what a message it will send of hope to the american people that we are willing to stand up to the biggest powers that be, that we are willing to fight for the average american, that we're not in the pockets of big oil. you don't need to give american taxpayer dollars to big oil.

it's absolutely ridiculous. and you don't have to allow them to drill in pristine areas when they won't even drill in areas that they have had under lease for years. and let's stop them from exporting the oil. we need it. let's keep it here. let's keep it here. and by the way, if they keep on ripping us off like this, and getting rewarded for it from my republican friends, let's release some oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, madam president, and let's increase the supply and let's see prices go down. let's look at the c.e.o.'s of big oil for a minute, these poor guys that are fighting for these subsidies, let's look at them. c.e.o.'s for the big five made more than $14.5 million in total compensation in 2010. this is it.

average compensation. madam president, that's 307 times the average salary of a firefighter. that's 273 times the average salary of a teacher. that's 263 times the average salary of a policeman. that's 218 times the average salary of a nurse. but they need subsidies for their companies, and they need to rip us off at the pump so they can make a little more money. $14.5 million just isn't enough for a poor oil company executive. give me a break. and stop giving them a break, because they don't need this break. so we have an opportunity to stand up for what's right, and i hope that we take it because right now we want alternatives to big oil. we want competition for big oil.

we want to be able to become energy independent. so let's stop these taxpayer handouts. the bill companies don't need them. let's start investing in america's energy future, which, by the way, that kind of investment creates many jobs at a time that we need to do that. i want to switch topics here in the remainder of my time and talk a minute about health care and then close with a little bit about the highway bill over in the house and the struggle over there to get their work done. and so i would ask how many minutes i have left. the presiding officer: senator, you have six and a half minutes remaining. mrs. boxer: would the chair advise me when i have two minutes left? the presiding officer: i will advise you. mrs. boxer: thank you so much. madam president, we all are watching what the supreme court is going to do in terms of the health care bill that they have

before them, and what i want to do today is completely stay away from that argument and talk about what the health care bill is doing now, right now as we speak, because people tend to get involved in a mandate and if it's constitutional and how does it work and so on. i want to talk about what the obama health care plan is doing for my people at home, your people back home and the people of this country right now. as we stand here today, over 5 million seniors have saved more than $3 billion on their prescription drugs, because the way it worked before this bill was passed, you would use up a certain amount of money and then you would fall into this coverage gap that they call a doughnut hole, and just when you're at your sickest point, you get no help. and a lot of our seniors were not taking their medicines at

that critical point because they couldn't afford the full cost. they were cutting the pills in half and praying, and it was a sad situation. because of health care reform, we have had these seniors being able to keep their medications flowing. last year in my state, 300,000 seniors were able to save $171 million in their costs. so let's look at that again. as a result of obama health care that i proudly supported, already five million senior citizens are able to afford their prescription drugs. your mother, your father, your grandma, your grandpa. and that's important. what's going to happen to those people if this whole thing gets overturned? they will get sick and they will

not have those medications. in addition, what else is happening, madam president? 2.5 million young americans are now covered because they can stay on their parents' health plan until they turn 26. right now without this law, when you graduated from college you were out of luck. and you have to find your own health care. obama plan said you should be able to stay on your parents' health plan until you turn 26. i can't tell you how many people have written to me to thank me for that. so 2.5 million americans. so over there in the supreme court, they're talking about legalese, and i appreciate that. they're talking about severability. they're talking about a lot of interesting things. but one thing i want to talk

about is what's going to happen to five million senior citizens who are able to stay on their medication as a result of the obama health plan, what's going to happen to the 2.5 million americans who are young who can stay on nairnts' plan till -- parents' plan till they're 26 if something happens over there across the street in terms of this legal case. in california, 335,000 californians have benefited from that young person being able to stay on their parents' insurance provision. now, what's going to happen to 54 million americans who now have access to free preventive care such as screenings for colon cancer, mammograms and flu shots? this is new, folks. before you didn't get free prevention. had you to pay a co-payment. and i have to tell you as i live my life and i see the tragedy of

cancer and i have learned very clearly that if you take care of yourself, if you have the mammograms, if you have the colon cancer screening, your life can be saved. what's going to happen to 54 million americans who have that preventive care now if the supreme court strikes it down? now, more than six million californians out of those 54 million have gotten these screenings and vaccinations, and i will close with health care on this story. i don't know how many people realize there used to be before the obama -- before the obama health care plan, caps on insurance policies. they looked big. maybe they were a million-dollar happen, a half a million-dollar cap. i know i had one on my husband's policy before i had different insurance. it had a cap.

and what happened at that time is that if you use up enough health care, you're finished at a certain point. i want to tell you the story of julie walters of nevado, california. she wrote about her 3-year-old daughter violet who -- the presiding officer: senator, you have about two minutes left. mrs. boxer: thank you. she suffers from a severe form of epilepsy. she wrote that violet could hit her lifetime limit in five years. here's a little baby who is reaching her lifetime limit, and that was the end. and her mom wrote she warned a lifetime limit on insurance is a limit on my daughter's lifetime, and that is immoral. no more because of health care reform can you have a lifetime limit. so i wanted to point out this and so many other things that are totally essential to our people are at stake across the

street. and in closing, before we reach our full time, i want call on the house to take and pass the senate transportation bill. three million jobs are at risk. they can't get their act together. allow a vote on the bipartisan transportation bill, and then leave for your vacation. but don't just give us these extensions which are frankly death by a thousand cuts. we already know six or seven states including those in the northeast that are laying people off because they don't have certainty with the transportation bill. so i thank you very, very much. i thank the chairman of the judiciary for allowing me to finish and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: thank you. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the

clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, miranda du of nevada to be united states district judge. susie morgan of louisiana to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 60 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by in the usual form. mr. leahy: madam president, i'd ask consent that the time be divided equally but that the -- am i correct we did the full 60 minutes, we would start the first vote at 5:35? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. leahy: that we divide the time equally between now and 5:30 and the vote be at 5:30. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: thank you. today the senate will finally vote on the nomination of miranda du to fill a vacancy in the district of nevada and susie

morgan to fill a vacancy in the eastern district of louisiana. i would note that both have the bipartisan support of their home state senators, and they were reported by the judiciary committee over four months ago. i mention that because usually these are the kind of nominations in the past under both democratic and republican presidents would go through on a voice vote in a matter of days after being reported out. especially for judicial vacancies. somehow this president seems to be held to a different -- different rules than the republican and democratic presidents who proceeded him -- preceded him. i think that's unfortunate because the senate is still only considering judicial nominations that could and should have been confirmed last year. that's one of the reasons why the judicial vacancies rate remains -- vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was in the

first term of george w. bush where democrats moved to move his nominees far far faster than republicans have worked to move president obama's nominees. i ask that my full statement be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: madam president, continuing the time that's been allotted to me, i would ask consent that the following statement appear as though in morning business, but utilizing the time now allotted to me. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: i'd like to say just a few words about the repeal big oil tax subsidies act. it's a bill i strongly support. it's long past time congress acted to close wasteful tax loopholes for big oil. and by doing that put the money back in the pockets of hard-working americans. over the past ten years, b.p.,

exxonmobil, chevron, shell, conoco phillips have seen combined profits of nearly $1 trillion. trillion with a t. 1,000 billion dollars. but despite this massive windfall, big oil continues to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. subsidies that are unnecessary, unconscionable, and money out of the pockets of the american taxpayers who are already paying record prices for the product of big oil. so the repeal big oil tax subsidies act will eliminate these harmful subsidies, level the playing field for all americans. big oil does not need these big tax breaks. i might note they get all this from the taxpayers, they get

these subsidies from the taxpayers. by suggest when you look at the price of gasoline at the pump today, they certainly don't appreciate what the taxpayers have done for them. in fact, they want to gouge them a second time, first take their tax dollars for the trillion dollars worth of subsidies, but then charge them record prices for gasoline. look no further than the prices of vermont when i filled up my car before coming back this week. the average price of a gallon of gasoline is $3.85, up approximately 30 cents from the average price in march, 2011. i know in other parts of the country it's up even higher. i mention vermont because we're a rural state, the distinguished presiding officer, she's from a state with large rural areas. and there people have to rely on cars to get around. i'd also say heating fuel is a

life-or-death necessity in the wintertime whether it's in vermont or in minnesota, the home of the distinguished presiding officer. now, the price vermonters are paying are lining the pockets of wealthy executives of these oil companies, they cripple family budgets across the country. and despite their ever-increasing profits, unneeded subsidies, the five major oil companies have done nothing to bring down prices for average consumers. they ask the taxpayers to give them these huge subsidies and they say, oh, by the way, thanks for the huge tax subsidies you're giving us, thanks for giving us your tax dollars, but we want more money on top of that. and that's padding their pockets at the expense of hard-working middle-class families in states like mine of vermont. now, if we eliminate these tax

breaks, we'll end more than $2.4 billion per year in unnecessary tax breaks. this could help bring the federal government's deficit down, can also reinvest in clean energy technologies. it will benefit everyone. this is kind of an easy matter, madam president. senators can make a choice. stand with the american people and stand up to big oil, or just continue business as usual. i know big oil is spending millions of dollars on lobbyists hoping that we won't stand up to them. i think we ought to. the choice is clear. i'd ask my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: and, madam president, continuing under the same unanimous consent request i made earlier today, the supreme court concluded

three days of oral arguments about the affordable health care act law congress passed two years ago to provide millions of americans with access to affordable health care, bringing down the costs in this area. i attended yesterday's argument about the constitutionality of the provisions. hundreds of thousands of vermonters, millions of americans across the country who are going to benefit from the affordable health care act didn't have the access i had to the supreme court. another reason why i and others have urged the supreme court to televise their proceedings to the american people, can see exactly what's going on. i do appreciate the fact that chief justice roberts would not agree to my request to televise it, did agree to make an audio

recording available shortly after the arguments. but this is going to affect every single american, and just like the debates on this floor, debates that are interesting and debates that are sometimes boring, they usually affect all americans, and we made sure that in the senate we televise them so they can see it. the reason why i say we have a stake in this, americans are already beginning to see some of the benefits of insurance reform. seniors on medicare have high-cost prescriptions and have been trapped with a coverage gap known as the doughnut hole are now beginning to receive help. the affordable health care act completely closes the coverage gap by 2020. 2010, more than 7,000 vermonters received a $250 rebate to help cover the costs of their prescription drugs when they hit the so-called doughnut

hole. last year nearly 6,800 vermonters with medicare received a 50% discount on their covered grand-name prescriptions. that saved them $714 per person. since the affordable health care act was signed into law more than 4,000 young adults in vermont have gained health insurance coverage under these reforms that allows them to stay on their parents' plans until their 26th birthday. i wish we'd had that with our kids were college students. 81,649 vermonters on medicare and more than 100,000 vermonters with private insurance gained access to and received preventive screening coverage with no dediblgget or co-pay. -- deductible or co-pay. if all this is happening with a state with 600,000 people can you imagine how many millions of people this this country are

benefiting? for years we've had republican and democratic senators rightfully say that judges should not make law from the bench. for the sake of the health and security of our nation the supreme court should not cast aside this last mark law and congress' time honored ability to protect the american people. they want to say this law is constitutional --, unconstitutional and, the same argument could be made to cast aside social security and medicare. do people really want that? working americans have long been required to pay for social security and medicare by deductions on their taxes and paycheck. this is not novel for congress to pass laws affecting the health care market that makes up one-sixth of the u.s. economy. that is, after all, the key to satisfying the test for constitutionality under the commerce clause. now we find the same people who

say judges should not make law from the bench, these opponents of the affordable care act want judges to make law from the bench and override these legislative decisions. made by the elected representatives of the american people. they're willing to challenge the wisdom understood by generations of supreme court justices and the great chief justice john marshall in upholding the constitutionality of the national bank nearly 200 years ago to justice cardoza finding social security constitutional early in the last century. what is telling about the partisan nature of these challenges is that many of those who now claim that the requirement that americans have health insurance or face a tax penalty is unconstitutional, they're the same people who once proposed it. all of these opponents were for

ensuring personal responsibility with an individual mandate. they all were supporting until, oh, president obama was for it. now they're against it. past presidents, they were for it. when this president is for it, they were against it. their views may have changed but the constitution has not and it's the same constitution that was there when they supported it. the affordable carability act builds on some of the cornerstones of american economic security built over the century. i believe the congress acted within its constitutional powers i still believe that. i believe that, having heard the arguments yesterday. i'm hoping the supreme court will do the right thing and uphold this. they may not agree with every single part of it but they're not the legislators who argued it, debated it and held hearings

on it and then passed it. madam president, i ask that all my statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum with the time to be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: